To branch off on end-times things, what I got this morning ... would you give me your thoughts?
I was writing up something this morning and reviewing the churches in the book of the Revelation and something caught my eye. I know that they're "supposed" to be a somewhat chronological account of the churches throughout Christendom, but ... it's obvious it's not quite chronological, as the persecuted church in, say, China, is certainly not Laodicean in the least, whereas our Western church is rife with Laodiceanness.
Or is it?
*I* am the WORST EVER for calling our church Laodicea (not my home church, it rocks, I mean the "western protestant church as a whole"). But I think I've been wrong.
Revelation 3:1-6 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write: These things saith he that hath the seven spirits of God, and the seven stars. I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember, therefore, how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If, therefore, thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis that have not defiled their garments, and they shall walk with me in white; for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Um. Well THAT's us, right enough. Have a name that we live, but we're really dead inside? How many "churches" does that describe. (flinch)
Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die Again - we are in the time of watching intensely for our Lord's return. And I think that most of us who are educated Christians are trying HARD to strengthen what remains... "ready to die" ... again, that really describes what I've been seeing. Does anyone else feel a bit like fixing the western church (making it what it was, say, in 1898) is like bailing with a bucket with holes? We change and go on, or we die. We won't stay Sardis forever.
Now, this is what God has to say about Laodicea:
Revelation 3: 14-22 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God. I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So, then, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing, and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. I counsel of thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and annoint thy eyes with salve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous, therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
I am thinking (this is ME, not the various interpreters) that the church of Laodicea could be compared to the dying Mainline churches and somewhat to the church as it goes into the Tribulation. We know that there will be some saved during the Tribulation - and that will definitely be a trial by fire. White raiment is often described as what martyrs are given to wear. I'm definitely not saying that Laodicea is not part of the church as it exists today - far from it. I am saying that I believe that we have both Laodicea and Sardis extant in the West today. Sardis is going to get raptured out and Laodicea left to burn.
What are your thoughts? I'm excited by this food that I got this morning!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Addendum
Just answer a few questions that I found - and apologizing for my tone. Politics pushes buttons, which is why I prefer not to discuss it.
You'll have to give me examples of Obama being worshipped. I don't know of anything I've heard or read that indicates anything more than plays-well-with-others.
I don't know if it's still on there, but there was a video - on MSN - of numerous celebrities pledging themselves "in service to Barack Obama". By name. Americans don't pledge themselves to serve a particular person, nor do Christians. One might well pledge themselves to the service of the country at large, but an individual? It was VERY creepy. It was clearly meant to inspire "normals" to the community service that Obama pushed during his campaign, but ... um... word choice says a great deal, you know? Perhaps Canada hasn't seen or heard the cult of Obama - it diminished after the inaugeration. What interested me about this (after the first shivers of fear subsided) was not Obama in particular, but how desperate those without God are for someone to worship, someone to fix things for them. They are willing to pledge themselves, no strings attached, in public... because someone says what they want to hear. (Obama hasn't had time to prove himself one way or another). I strongly believe that the real AC will use this.
It's the reasoning or lack of it that scares me silly. See above. One of the tools that the devil is using is a total lack of education about the Bible... and about everything else. I share your fear of the lack of reasoning.
Big Brother is watching your every move and the church is applauding because you ought not to mind Big Brother watching you if you don't have anything to hide. Since there will be a faux church that morphs into the church of the AC, and which is the primary persecutor of Christians and Jews in the Tribulation, you'll have no argument from me here. I could make you a very fine list of the ways in which our liberties have already been curtailed, and another list of the conspiracy theories of how our liberties will soon be. That is on my "the end is near" list!
To answer the question baldly and then to go on... the reason that *I* did not want Obama as my president (seems like a fine guy, I don't dislike *him*) is because I don't like his friends and I don't like his voting record on certain issues close to my heart. That's it.
Hope this was helpful. And if you want me to talk to you about why I think the end is getting closer, I'm happy to do that.
You'll have to give me examples of Obama being worshipped. I don't know of anything I've heard or read that indicates anything more than plays-well-with-others.
I don't know if it's still on there, but there was a video - on MSN - of numerous celebrities pledging themselves "in service to Barack Obama". By name. Americans don't pledge themselves to serve a particular person, nor do Christians. One might well pledge themselves to the service of the country at large, but an individual? It was VERY creepy. It was clearly meant to inspire "normals" to the community service that Obama pushed during his campaign, but ... um... word choice says a great deal, you know? Perhaps Canada hasn't seen or heard the cult of Obama - it diminished after the inaugeration. What interested me about this (after the first shivers of fear subsided) was not Obama in particular, but how desperate those without God are for someone to worship, someone to fix things for them. They are willing to pledge themselves, no strings attached, in public... because someone says what they want to hear. (Obama hasn't had time to prove himself one way or another). I strongly believe that the real AC will use this.
It's the reasoning or lack of it that scares me silly. See above. One of the tools that the devil is using is a total lack of education about the Bible... and about everything else. I share your fear of the lack of reasoning.
Big Brother is watching your every move and the church is applauding because you ought not to mind Big Brother watching you if you don't have anything to hide. Since there will be a faux church that morphs into the church of the AC, and which is the primary persecutor of Christians and Jews in the Tribulation, you'll have no argument from me here. I could make you a very fine list of the ways in which our liberties have already been curtailed, and another list of the conspiracy theories of how our liberties will soon be. That is on my "the end is near" list!
To answer the question baldly and then to go on... the reason that *I* did not want Obama as my president (seems like a fine guy, I don't dislike *him*) is because I don't like his friends and I don't like his voting record on certain issues close to my heart. That's it.
Hope this was helpful. And if you want me to talk to you about why I think the end is getting closer, I'm happy to do that.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Laodicea
I am not sure how to respond to your last post. I can feel the anger wafting off of the page... and it is justified. Yes, we live in the church of Laodicea. But I thought we were agreed on that, that the "church" in the West (America, Canada, Europe - and much of the entrenched Catholic church) was, in fact, the church of Laodicea, and not really part of the Church of Christ at all. Were we not? Had I implied otherwise?
Revelation 3: 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing, and knowest not that thou are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked,
Is that NOT a description of the Western "church"? Can you NOT find a hundred sites calling for a separation of churchianity and Christianity, people who no longer even call themselves Christians, prefering to call themselves worshipers of Jesus? Do you not know that there is a very great deal of conservative anger at exactly the same target, the visible and disgustingly lukewarm "church" in America, in Canada, in Britain... are we not agreed here?
You say, "The church should do more about the poor" but *who is the church*? The church is the body of believers. It is Layla, it is Hearth. It is the churches that *we* belong to, the people that we can influence. My church DOES feed the hungry, clothe the naked, pray for the sick. And yes, it also takes a stand on the political issues that you deem inappropriate for a church to mix itself with. Why can we not be brethren, knowing that we all have battles to fight, knowing that we are meant to both be light and salt - to show what is wrong and be uncompromising in that effort as we are also love and compassion?
On the one side you say we shouldn't mix ourselves in politics, then on the other you embrace socialism over capitalism, and tell me what a bad government I have. You're holding me accountable for things I have no control over - and you're angry. You ask me why I should want other countries to embrace Pax Americana when I don't trust our government. Well, I don't think they should. Our desire to be the world's policeman, to go and make people play nicely by force of arms is one of the good intentions that has paved Hell's Highway. We support our troops - and we know that we sent them there (the PEOPLE sent them there) because we thought we could right a wrong. The reason - the exact reason - I do not trust our leaders is because they have failed to lead us in righteousness. They lie about motivations, they steal, they cheat... and then our servicemembers, who left their homes because they wanted to do the right thing, they are the ones who die. The LEADERS are getting something out of the deal... I am disgusted with Hillary Clinton, "Human rights don't take precedence over the economy"... and you ask me to trust her? Fah! They LIE TO US every day - and no one knows all the lies save Jesus. Governments will pass away. Buildings will crumble. Souls are eternal. The powerful, of whatever stripe, do not care about individual souls, but our Master does.
Do you want me to tell you what government I trust? I trust Jesus sitting on the Throne of the world. Save that? I trust my husband. I trust my *local* police. I trust the individual people. I don't trust leaders, they are corrupt. Or they're misled. We are fast falling into fascism, where "I was ordered to do it" is going to come right back around at us. If I thought I had to spend 10 more years on this planet, the direction that things are very quickly going, I'd be on my knees begging my husband to relocate us somewhere sustainable and hard to find. The conservative Christians who do not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture are doing just that. So are some non-Christians.
This is the definition of anti-christ (lower case, the multiple antichrists, not the AC himself): 1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God; and this is that spirit of antichrist, of which ye have heard that it should come, and even now is already in the world. That definition lets out both Obama and GWB, both of whom have confessed Christ as their savior. They'd have to repudiate that to make either of them an antichrist.
The definition I was speaking of as far as peacemaker? The AntiChrist will declare/negotiate a seven-year peace treaty with Israel and "many nations". It does appear, in Revelation 6, that he comes forth to conquor... but he doesn't seem to do much slaughter up front. It's also clear, from Revelation, that he will come from Europe, not the United States. (In other words, Arnold goes home and maybe he can be the AC, but neither Obama nor GWB are qualified).
So, again... since I am instructed to keep watch for the day of the Lord, since I am instructed to keep busy, serving him and not going to sleep at the stove just because He isn't here right now... why are you angry that I'm watching? Am I neglecting my duties because I watch? Do you believe that of me? Come to my local church, and tell my pastor that because he's preaching Daniel this month, that he's not taking care of any poor people, that his eyes are closed to new ways to serve God and the community. I'm sure he could use a good laugh. Would you like a copy of my tax receipts, to see where I send my donations, and how much? I realise you were not trying to be personal, that you were angry at the "American Evangelical Church" But that's the point... that church is a fiction - if Hearth and Layla are not the church, then who is? *I* am an American Evangelical Christian, yes... because I am American, because I am evangelical, because I am a Christian. But what I really am is a servant to the Most High.
As far as crying wolf ... if the Jews at the time of Christ had been paying attention (and many of them were - do you know how many of the Jews in Jerusalem converted? I don't), they would have known that Jesus was the Messiah. They chucked Him because His first kingdom was the kingdom of the heart and He did not bring them physical victory. They *did* know that it was time, and if they'd believed the Bible and not their assumptions, they'd have converted.
I guess people say this person or that person could be the AC because of the same reason that I watch the sky - I am not a citizen of Earth, and I'm homesick. If the AC was here, that would mean at most I'd have seven years to hold out (that's assuming the Rapture didn't happen - I'm with my church and don't believe if we could *really* spot the AC that the Trib wouldn't have started). I know from our private conversations that you're homesick too. So? Look to the skies, look to Jesus, and keep your hands (and mine) busy. Isn't that what we're supposed to do?
I can understand why you're sick of the Laodicean church of the West. But I don't get why you're annoyed with my desire to go Home, so long as it doesn't interfere with my service while I am here. (Nor do I understand why anyone who truly believed in the imminent return wouldn't be getting busy cleaning up their own lives and abiding in Christ so they could bear every bit of fruit possible before the end). I can understand why you don't care for American policies - I can even get why you might be disgusted at the fact that the "American Evangelical church" was behind GWB rather than Obama, because your priority is for social justice. I do get it. But why do you assume that I'm behind this or that I wish to argue a position that I don't hold? I neither wish to criticize nor support my brethren in Christ who have different priorities. I can only argue my *own* positions.
Ask me a specific question about my specific position and we can work through things... we have gotten too broad a brush, and there's not enough paint to go around.
Revelation 3: 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing, and knowest not that thou are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked,
Is that NOT a description of the Western "church"? Can you NOT find a hundred sites calling for a separation of churchianity and Christianity, people who no longer even call themselves Christians, prefering to call themselves worshipers of Jesus? Do you not know that there is a very great deal of conservative anger at exactly the same target, the visible and disgustingly lukewarm "church" in America, in Canada, in Britain... are we not agreed here?
You say, "The church should do more about the poor" but *who is the church*? The church is the body of believers. It is Layla, it is Hearth. It is the churches that *we* belong to, the people that we can influence. My church DOES feed the hungry, clothe the naked, pray for the sick. And yes, it also takes a stand on the political issues that you deem inappropriate for a church to mix itself with. Why can we not be brethren, knowing that we all have battles to fight, knowing that we are meant to both be light and salt - to show what is wrong and be uncompromising in that effort as we are also love and compassion?
On the one side you say we shouldn't mix ourselves in politics, then on the other you embrace socialism over capitalism, and tell me what a bad government I have. You're holding me accountable for things I have no control over - and you're angry. You ask me why I should want other countries to embrace Pax Americana when I don't trust our government. Well, I don't think they should. Our desire to be the world's policeman, to go and make people play nicely by force of arms is one of the good intentions that has paved Hell's Highway. We support our troops - and we know that we sent them there (the PEOPLE sent them there) because we thought we could right a wrong. The reason - the exact reason - I do not trust our leaders is because they have failed to lead us in righteousness. They lie about motivations, they steal, they cheat... and then our servicemembers, who left their homes because they wanted to do the right thing, they are the ones who die. The LEADERS are getting something out of the deal... I am disgusted with Hillary Clinton, "Human rights don't take precedence over the economy"... and you ask me to trust her? Fah! They LIE TO US every day - and no one knows all the lies save Jesus. Governments will pass away. Buildings will crumble. Souls are eternal. The powerful, of whatever stripe, do not care about individual souls, but our Master does.
Do you want me to tell you what government I trust? I trust Jesus sitting on the Throne of the world. Save that? I trust my husband. I trust my *local* police. I trust the individual people. I don't trust leaders, they are corrupt. Or they're misled. We are fast falling into fascism, where "I was ordered to do it" is going to come right back around at us. If I thought I had to spend 10 more years on this planet, the direction that things are very quickly going, I'd be on my knees begging my husband to relocate us somewhere sustainable and hard to find. The conservative Christians who do not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture are doing just that. So are some non-Christians.
This is the definition of anti-christ (lower case, the multiple antichrists, not the AC himself): 1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God; and this is that spirit of antichrist, of which ye have heard that it should come, and even now is already in the world. That definition lets out both Obama and GWB, both of whom have confessed Christ as their savior. They'd have to repudiate that to make either of them an antichrist.
The definition I was speaking of as far as peacemaker? The AntiChrist will declare/negotiate a seven-year peace treaty with Israel and "many nations". It does appear, in Revelation 6, that he comes forth to conquor... but he doesn't seem to do much slaughter up front. It's also clear, from Revelation, that he will come from Europe, not the United States. (In other words, Arnold goes home and maybe he can be the AC, but neither Obama nor GWB are qualified).
So, again... since I am instructed to keep watch for the day of the Lord, since I am instructed to keep busy, serving him and not going to sleep at the stove just because He isn't here right now... why are you angry that I'm watching? Am I neglecting my duties because I watch? Do you believe that of me? Come to my local church, and tell my pastor that because he's preaching Daniel this month, that he's not taking care of any poor people, that his eyes are closed to new ways to serve God and the community. I'm sure he could use a good laugh. Would you like a copy of my tax receipts, to see where I send my donations, and how much? I realise you were not trying to be personal, that you were angry at the "American Evangelical Church" But that's the point... that church is a fiction - if Hearth and Layla are not the church, then who is? *I* am an American Evangelical Christian, yes... because I am American, because I am evangelical, because I am a Christian. But what I really am is a servant to the Most High.
As far as crying wolf ... if the Jews at the time of Christ had been paying attention (and many of them were - do you know how many of the Jews in Jerusalem converted? I don't), they would have known that Jesus was the Messiah. They chucked Him because His first kingdom was the kingdom of the heart and He did not bring them physical victory. They *did* know that it was time, and if they'd believed the Bible and not their assumptions, they'd have converted.
I guess people say this person or that person could be the AC because of the same reason that I watch the sky - I am not a citizen of Earth, and I'm homesick. If the AC was here, that would mean at most I'd have seven years to hold out (that's assuming the Rapture didn't happen - I'm with my church and don't believe if we could *really* spot the AC that the Trib wouldn't have started). I know from our private conversations that you're homesick too. So? Look to the skies, look to Jesus, and keep your hands (and mine) busy. Isn't that what we're supposed to do?
I can understand why you're sick of the Laodicean church of the West. But I don't get why you're annoyed with my desire to go Home, so long as it doesn't interfere with my service while I am here. (Nor do I understand why anyone who truly believed in the imminent return wouldn't be getting busy cleaning up their own lives and abiding in Christ so they could bear every bit of fruit possible before the end). I can understand why you don't care for American policies - I can even get why you might be disgusted at the fact that the "American Evangelical church" was behind GWB rather than Obama, because your priority is for social justice. I do get it. But why do you assume that I'm behind this or that I wish to argue a position that I don't hold? I neither wish to criticize nor support my brethren in Christ who have different priorities. I can only argue my *own* positions.
Ask me a specific question about my specific position and we can work through things... we have gotten too broad a brush, and there's not enough paint to go around.
anti-christs, politics, and christians
First off, I didn't mean any swipe at you and I'm sorry if somehow you got that impression. It was a genuine question but it might all have been poorly worded.
And yes, I know that you are one of those awaiting the Rapture and while I believe absolutely in Christ's return, I also think that you go way overboard on this like many Christians, in focusing too much on that return. Which is the gist of what I was trying to say: that Christians have a long history of crying wolf about the end of the world and the anti-Christ. Yet they were all for GWB who apparently knew enough to say all the things dear to evangelical hearts so that when there was truly a problem, they raised no hue and cry.
Yes, it does annoy me. It annoys me for the sake of the world generally, who has leaders imposed on it, via American elections. Your elections don't just impact you. When Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you" I believe he was stating a fact, not a path to follow to keep the poor poor. The anticipation of the end times ought not to become so foremost in our minds that we neglect to be our brothers' keepers.
This is why I believe Christians shouldn't be involved in politics. They/we (and I include all Christians, not just American Christians) don't have a great history of backing what is right which in turn reflects on Christianity and Christians as a whole.
I give as my example for my concern the Jews in Jesus' time who also were so focused on the end of the world, and what they thought the messiah would be or should be, that he entered unnoticed, in a stable, with no place to lay his head.
And I beg to differ that my post was primarily political. If it seems so, it is only because Americans involve God in their politics. If America was a nation where the subject of a candidate's faith didn't come up, or if America was a banana republic who had no impact on the rest of the world, it wouldn't matter.
I also don't agree that the anti-christ must be universally adored. GWB was not hated by the rest of the world until he took the world into his wars with largely the blessing of the evangelical community in the US. For example the quote describing the anti-Christ as "who is like unto the beast and who is able to make war with him" isn't necessarily about adoration. It is about fear. It is about being powerless in the face of a power who has the ability to do exactly what it wants to do and to hell with you.
Pax Romana was not about a peaceful Rome, but about a Rome so powerful no one could stand up to it, a Rome who in many ways brought law and order (their form of law and order) to the world. There's very little about ancient Rome and its dealings with countries it occupied that can't be said about the US and Rome was a form of an anti-christ state. Rome was not loved.
As far as "The AC is going to be someone universally adored, someone riding in on false pretenses of peace, someone who people will literally worship - and not all of them will have to be forced to do that."
Are you thinking of the prophecy in Daniel, where the anti-christ is said to "magnify himself in his own heart" and "by peace shall destroy many?"
Because in terms of an anti-christ, peace does not mean peace in the sense of turning the other cheek. That verse refers to the Roman policy of overwhelming force so that no one is able to fight back. That is what it means by peace destroying many. Again, rather like US foreign policy. Peace doesn't mean peace in the sense of the peaceful, when it comes at the point of a gun. Further in Daniel there is a verse that says that this anti-christ will 'divide the land for gain.' Another way of saying, American interests are paramount, not actual matters of unjust regimes. I only use the US as an example because it is *the* world power. Again, pretty much GWB's entire foreign policy.
My point is not to blacken the name of GWB but to point out the inconsistencies in how too many American Christians view their political leaders. GWB is not the anti-christ. As far as I know, no one claimed he was either. But there are folks who would have those suspicions of Obama when so far, there is far less to go on. And THAT is what I don't understand. A year or two or three from now, if Obama doesn't make a drastic change to how the US operates in the world, and pursues the idea of an imperial America, I may well have a list for him to equal a list for GWB.
The names, the individuals don't matter. That isn't the point. The point is - for me - and it is upsetting to me as a Christian - Christian involvement in politics, when it could as easily have been GWB the Anti-Christ, as Obama the Anti-Christ. It's the reasoning or lack of it that scares me silly. In our previous discussion about socialism and capitalism, you made the point that Americans don't trust their government. If you don't, why should the rest of the world be thrilled over the idea of an exported American democracy whom its own citizens don't trust to act in its citizens' best interests?
Kings in ancient times often wanted to be worshipped. Like Nebuchadnezzar for example, with his statues of himself that Daniel refused to bow down to. But I don't see that the fact that people obey a despot means a despot is loved. I think it starts with little things, like basic freedoms being taken away in the name of saving the world for democracy American-style, and before you know it, Big Brother is watching your every move and the church is applauding because you ought not to mind Big Brother watching you if you don't have anything to hide.
I don't see where the anti-christ therefore has to be loved.
As far as Obama is concerned, does being a likable guy who seems to realize that the world does not wish to conform to American standards make him a bad guy? GWB alienated every bit of good will in the world that he could have used for something good. As Christians, are we only to trust leaders who can't play well with others in order to avoid accidently praising a potential anti-Christ?
My personal way to deal with that is to absent myself from politics when it comes to things like voting because I know people can be easily, easily fooled. Obama could be the anti-christ. GWB could also have been the anti-Christ. How stupid wouldn't the church have looked then at the judgement seat of the Most High explaining how they'd bought a bill of goods?
Therefore, in times which I agree are troubled, I value caution and wait-and-see and don't advocate anyone politically. These are however, not the first troubled times mankind has known.
You'll have to give me examples of Obama being worshipped. I don't know of anything I've heard or read that indicates anything more than plays-well-with-others.
The only thing I've seen, as a non-American, wrt how the rest of the world sees Obama is that he has one endearing quality that supersedes all others: he is not GWB. The world really suffered for eight years under a man who was either a fool or misguided so badly that one circles right back around to fool.
That is all it is. Obama feels to "us" - if I may take the liberty of speaking for the non-American world - like a normal person. As if he's aware that the US can't continue to act unilaterally. So people are prepared to give him a chance while still remaining as wary of America and American foreign policy as always. Obama is well-travelled, he has a world view that isn't buried in America. He is more of a world citizen as opposed to the "Ugly American Abroad" personality that GWB presented.
So "the world" broadly speaking, can relate to him in a way that they have never been able to relate to Americans who are too American. They are willing to give him a break - nothing more. The world generally doesn't trust America and it will take more than having a nice president to get the world to change its mind. It's more along the lines of "he seems like a nice guy but we'll wait and see."
Have I explained better? I certainly am not trying to be snide or swipe at anyone. What I want is the American church to sit up and pay attention to what it's doing, and what it is doing to itself in supporting or voicing support for anyone at all politically. If Christians are 'brothers and sisters' then that relationship should supersede nationality and Christians who are not Americans are put off by the mingling of politics, secular notions of freedom instead of the freedom that Christ gives us. It's alienating. And I don't think that is right at all.
I'd be happier to have used a Canadian example in order to avoid being called anti-American but Canada is not on the world stage. A Canadian anti-christ would be really really .... strange. Who would listen? What army would back it up?
And yes, I know that you are one of those awaiting the Rapture and while I believe absolutely in Christ's return, I also think that you go way overboard on this like many Christians, in focusing too much on that return. Which is the gist of what I was trying to say: that Christians have a long history of crying wolf about the end of the world and the anti-Christ. Yet they were all for GWB who apparently knew enough to say all the things dear to evangelical hearts so that when there was truly a problem, they raised no hue and cry.
Yes, it does annoy me. It annoys me for the sake of the world generally, who has leaders imposed on it, via American elections. Your elections don't just impact you. When Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you" I believe he was stating a fact, not a path to follow to keep the poor poor. The anticipation of the end times ought not to become so foremost in our minds that we neglect to be our brothers' keepers.
This is why I believe Christians shouldn't be involved in politics. They/we (and I include all Christians, not just American Christians) don't have a great history of backing what is right which in turn reflects on Christianity and Christians as a whole.
I give as my example for my concern the Jews in Jesus' time who also were so focused on the end of the world, and what they thought the messiah would be or should be, that he entered unnoticed, in a stable, with no place to lay his head.
And I beg to differ that my post was primarily political. If it seems so, it is only because Americans involve God in their politics. If America was a nation where the subject of a candidate's faith didn't come up, or if America was a banana republic who had no impact on the rest of the world, it wouldn't matter.
I also don't agree that the anti-christ must be universally adored. GWB was not hated by the rest of the world until he took the world into his wars with largely the blessing of the evangelical community in the US. For example the quote describing the anti-Christ as "who is like unto the beast and who is able to make war with him" isn't necessarily about adoration. It is about fear. It is about being powerless in the face of a power who has the ability to do exactly what it wants to do and to hell with you.
Pax Romana was not about a peaceful Rome, but about a Rome so powerful no one could stand up to it, a Rome who in many ways brought law and order (their form of law and order) to the world. There's very little about ancient Rome and its dealings with countries it occupied that can't be said about the US and Rome was a form of an anti-christ state. Rome was not loved.
As far as "The AC is going to be someone universally adored, someone riding in on false pretenses of peace, someone who people will literally worship - and not all of them will have to be forced to do that."
Are you thinking of the prophecy in Daniel, where the anti-christ is said to "magnify himself in his own heart" and "by peace shall destroy many?"
Because in terms of an anti-christ, peace does not mean peace in the sense of turning the other cheek. That verse refers to the Roman policy of overwhelming force so that no one is able to fight back. That is what it means by peace destroying many. Again, rather like US foreign policy. Peace doesn't mean peace in the sense of the peaceful, when it comes at the point of a gun. Further in Daniel there is a verse that says that this anti-christ will 'divide the land for gain.' Another way of saying, American interests are paramount, not actual matters of unjust regimes. I only use the US as an example because it is *the* world power. Again, pretty much GWB's entire foreign policy.
My point is not to blacken the name of GWB but to point out the inconsistencies in how too many American Christians view their political leaders. GWB is not the anti-christ. As far as I know, no one claimed he was either. But there are folks who would have those suspicions of Obama when so far, there is far less to go on. And THAT is what I don't understand. A year or two or three from now, if Obama doesn't make a drastic change to how the US operates in the world, and pursues the idea of an imperial America, I may well have a list for him to equal a list for GWB.
The names, the individuals don't matter. That isn't the point. The point is - for me - and it is upsetting to me as a Christian - Christian involvement in politics, when it could as easily have been GWB the Anti-Christ, as Obama the Anti-Christ. It's the reasoning or lack of it that scares me silly. In our previous discussion about socialism and capitalism, you made the point that Americans don't trust their government. If you don't, why should the rest of the world be thrilled over the idea of an exported American democracy whom its own citizens don't trust to act in its citizens' best interests?
Kings in ancient times often wanted to be worshipped. Like Nebuchadnezzar for example, with his statues of himself that Daniel refused to bow down to. But I don't see that the fact that people obey a despot means a despot is loved. I think it starts with little things, like basic freedoms being taken away in the name of saving the world for democracy American-style, and before you know it, Big Brother is watching your every move and the church is applauding because you ought not to mind Big Brother watching you if you don't have anything to hide.
I don't see where the anti-christ therefore has to be loved.
As far as Obama is concerned, does being a likable guy who seems to realize that the world does not wish to conform to American standards make him a bad guy? GWB alienated every bit of good will in the world that he could have used for something good. As Christians, are we only to trust leaders who can't play well with others in order to avoid accidently praising a potential anti-Christ?
My personal way to deal with that is to absent myself from politics when it comes to things like voting because I know people can be easily, easily fooled. Obama could be the anti-christ. GWB could also have been the anti-Christ. How stupid wouldn't the church have looked then at the judgement seat of the Most High explaining how they'd bought a bill of goods?
Therefore, in times which I agree are troubled, I value caution and wait-and-see and don't advocate anyone politically. These are however, not the first troubled times mankind has known.
You'll have to give me examples of Obama being worshipped. I don't know of anything I've heard or read that indicates anything more than plays-well-with-others.
The only thing I've seen, as a non-American, wrt how the rest of the world sees Obama is that he has one endearing quality that supersedes all others: he is not GWB. The world really suffered for eight years under a man who was either a fool or misguided so badly that one circles right back around to fool.
That is all it is. Obama feels to "us" - if I may take the liberty of speaking for the non-American world - like a normal person. As if he's aware that the US can't continue to act unilaterally. So people are prepared to give him a chance while still remaining as wary of America and American foreign policy as always. Obama is well-travelled, he has a world view that isn't buried in America. He is more of a world citizen as opposed to the "Ugly American Abroad" personality that GWB presented.
So "the world" broadly speaking, can relate to him in a way that they have never been able to relate to Americans who are too American. They are willing to give him a break - nothing more. The world generally doesn't trust America and it will take more than having a nice president to get the world to change its mind. It's more along the lines of "he seems like a nice guy but we'll wait and see."
Have I explained better? I certainly am not trying to be snide or swipe at anyone. What I want is the American church to sit up and pay attention to what it's doing, and what it is doing to itself in supporting or voicing support for anyone at all politically. If Christians are 'brothers and sisters' then that relationship should supersede nationality and Christians who are not Americans are put off by the mingling of politics, secular notions of freedom instead of the freedom that Christ gives us. It's alienating. And I don't think that is right at all.
I'd be happier to have used a Canadian example in order to avoid being called anti-American but Canada is not on the world stage. A Canadian anti-christ would be really really .... strange. Who would listen? What army would back it up?
Wow
Hmm... first off, yes - most of your last post was really political, and I'm going to ignore that bit of it, because I really don't want to get into it with you ... or anyone.
As for GWB, why would he be the Anti-Christ? No one LIKES him. The AC is going to be someone universally adored, someone riding in on false pretenses of peace, someone who people will literally worship - and not all of them will have to be forced to do that. So, that's why I think some folks thought Obama might be the "one". And yeah, that ad was a little silly, but /shrug - aren't political ads mostly trash?
And, um... *I* am one of those people who are looking for the imminent return of Christ and *I* am expecting to be raptured out - rather soon - and do see lots of signs that this will happen in the near future. So - maybe it's just me being PMSy, but ouch. You sound pretty annoyed at us for some reason?
Sure GWB did a lot to set up anti-liberty things. Obama will, I am sure, follow right along on this path. I actually sat down and wrote out "why Obama can't be the AC" for my own use, I got nervous enough at the worship he is inspiring in others. (There are several good reasons). Likewise, there are several good reasons to see that we are not yet in the tribulation, though things are getting very dicey.
I would, from my own reading amongst those looking for the trib, say that no one really thinks people are planning to run to Canada, we'd entirely agree that those spy planes are going to be turned on us. I read a lot of interesting things - it's occasionally hard to sift the hysteria and made-up from the truth. I've read about prisons and things ready to be used on American citizens... oh, all kinds of nastiness. (Which would fall under, "when the Trib comes").
So. I don't think Obama is the antichrist. I don't know anyone who does think that.
More specific questions, perhaps? I'm pretty well-read on this issue, so happy to elaborate.
(Blogger is being uncooperative about showing the last post while I type this one so I have lost everything but the gist of the argument).
As for GWB, why would he be the Anti-Christ? No one LIKES him. The AC is going to be someone universally adored, someone riding in on false pretenses of peace, someone who people will literally worship - and not all of them will have to be forced to do that. So, that's why I think some folks thought Obama might be the "one". And yeah, that ad was a little silly, but /shrug - aren't political ads mostly trash?
And, um... *I* am one of those people who are looking for the imminent return of Christ and *I* am expecting to be raptured out - rather soon - and do see lots of signs that this will happen in the near future. So - maybe it's just me being PMSy, but ouch. You sound pretty annoyed at us for some reason?
Sure GWB did a lot to set up anti-liberty things. Obama will, I am sure, follow right along on this path. I actually sat down and wrote out "why Obama can't be the AC" for my own use, I got nervous enough at the worship he is inspiring in others. (There are several good reasons). Likewise, there are several good reasons to see that we are not yet in the tribulation, though things are getting very dicey.
I would, from my own reading amongst those looking for the trib, say that no one really thinks people are planning to run to Canada, we'd entirely agree that those spy planes are going to be turned on us. I read a lot of interesting things - it's occasionally hard to sift the hysteria and made-up from the truth. I've read about prisons and things ready to be used on American citizens... oh, all kinds of nastiness. (Which would fall under, "when the Trib comes").
So. I don't think Obama is the antichrist. I don't know anyone who does think that.
More specific questions, perhaps? I'm pretty well-read on this issue, so happy to elaborate.
(Blogger is being uncooperative about showing the last post while I type this one so I have lost everything but the gist of the argument).
Obama the Anti-Christ
Sorry to have been gone so long. As you know, life has been a little hectic for me lately. I did have some thoughts with regard to your last post, but I think I'll just leave that for now with the comment that I think that some of the differences we have there are in how you call certain things "soft" capitalism versus hard capitalism. One could also call it "soft" socialism versus hard socialism, the difference being only in the choice of words, which is why I think it is important to define what one means when one uses certain words.
I have a different bee in my bonnet today, partly brought on by President Obama's recent visit to Canada. In Canada he has personal approval ratings of 81 percent, a figure that is pretty well average for countries outside the US.
During the election, I heard (probably the last to hear it too) about the McCain internet ad about how Obama is "the One" with it's clear intent to associate Obama with the Anti-Christ and play to the fears and prejudices of evangelical Christians.
Now I like Obama. I am a huge fan of the man. But what I wonder about is why it is that Christians of a certain stripe are so ready to allow themselves to be manipulated with crap like Obama is really a Muslim (as if it matters, sheesh! So much for freedom of religion!)
Now I don't let myself get all caught up in what seems almost like a game to me, for certain Christians to be constantly anticipating the end of the world and the Rapture. There's a difference between believing in the certain hope that our Lord Jesus Christ will return and coming up with Christian bogeymen and conspiracy theories, which if I may suggest, could well cause those who believe in an Anti-Christ, a Rapture and the end of the world, to miss all the real signs because they are busy chasing their own prejudices.
However, what I don't get is why weren't American Christians who are suspicious now of Obama suspicious of George W. Bush being the Anti-Christ? Or were they and I just didn't hear about it, not being in the anticipating-the-end-of-the-world game?
As I understand the whole end-of-the-world scenario many evangelicals believe in, GWB fulfilled a lot more of the - um - qualifications. His foreign policy consisted in the belief that American values are world values - or should be. That rule of the people by the people counted only as long as "the people" wanted the values that GWB thought they should want. He sent forces to the land that historically has been associated with the Anti-Christ - Iraq, the site of ancient Babylon and as far as the rest of the world is concerned, "by peace, destroyed many."
GWB never showed mercy when he was governor of Texas to any death row prisoner, and took his "my way or the highway" ideas all the way to deliberately circumventing the right of prisoners to a fair trial as is shown in Gitmo. Some example of standing up for "freedom and democracy." A democratic society, a free society, has no need to circumvent its own laws in order to unlawfully hold prisoners, denying them any defense.
How is the rest of the world not supposed to have seen America then as an evil empire when the government preaches "freedom" but denies that freedom when it suits its purposes?
And all the while Americans' own rights were being whittled away in the name of preventing another 9/11. They've now got a Predator (I think it is called a Predator) plane flying the border between the US and the Canadian province of Manitoba. It's a spy plane that can tell what's on the ground. Supposedly it is for stopping any drug smuggling and illegal border crossings and such things.
I have no doubt there is some drug smuggling going on. It's a long border there through thick woods and swamps and lakes and whatnot, but Manitoba is a nothing province. No big time anything. We have had a couple of Americans crossing illegally into Canada from that border the last couple of years. Due to the terrain and the weather, they were very grateful to be found by our police in time for their lives to be saved by our socialized health care system. It is so isolated, you can't just walk across the border in either direction and find yourself in a town. Without being found, you have a better chance of dying than actually making it anywhere at all.
For the sake of one drug smuggler a year being caught, it hardly seems worth a ten million dollar investment. And it hardly seems worth the violation .of privacy to have a spy plane that can track every movement for ten kilometers on either side of the border.
It makes me think of the Berlin Wall and how the Communists told their people it was to keep them safe from all the folks on the western side who might want to illegally enter the DDR. Yeah, right. Canadians will not be flooding the border trying to get out of Canada, and given the erosion of freedom in the US, freedoms that actually count as opposed to freedoms that don't, it would be pretty easy to turn those planes on their own people, to prevent Americans from escaping a right-wing fascist government. Anything used to keep people out, can also be used to keep people in.
I'm not saying GWB is THE Anti-Christ (Cheney just might be, on the other hand *said tongue in cheek*) but it seems to me that given what he did, evangelical Christians should have been all worried about him being the Anti-Christ and yet many evangelicals supported him and his policies, as though he was a small "m" messiah.
I suppose you will think that this is about politics more than religion, but it's not, although I may have worded my thoughts poorly. The gist of what I'm trying to say/ask, is how it is that evangelicals pick one over the other as fitting the idea of an Anti-Christ. In terms of what Jesus said about there being "many" anti-christs, how does GWB not qualify for that job description?
I have a different bee in my bonnet today, partly brought on by President Obama's recent visit to Canada. In Canada he has personal approval ratings of 81 percent, a figure that is pretty well average for countries outside the US.
During the election, I heard (probably the last to hear it too) about the McCain internet ad about how Obama is "the One" with it's clear intent to associate Obama with the Anti-Christ and play to the fears and prejudices of evangelical Christians.
Now I like Obama. I am a huge fan of the man. But what I wonder about is why it is that Christians of a certain stripe are so ready to allow themselves to be manipulated with crap like Obama is really a Muslim (as if it matters, sheesh! So much for freedom of religion!)
Now I don't let myself get all caught up in what seems almost like a game to me, for certain Christians to be constantly anticipating the end of the world and the Rapture. There's a difference between believing in the certain hope that our Lord Jesus Christ will return and coming up with Christian bogeymen and conspiracy theories, which if I may suggest, could well cause those who believe in an Anti-Christ, a Rapture and the end of the world, to miss all the real signs because they are busy chasing their own prejudices.
However, what I don't get is why weren't American Christians who are suspicious now of Obama suspicious of George W. Bush being the Anti-Christ? Or were they and I just didn't hear about it, not being in the anticipating-the-end-of-the-world game?
As I understand the whole end-of-the-world scenario many evangelicals believe in, GWB fulfilled a lot more of the - um - qualifications. His foreign policy consisted in the belief that American values are world values - or should be. That rule of the people by the people counted only as long as "the people" wanted the values that GWB thought they should want. He sent forces to the land that historically has been associated with the Anti-Christ - Iraq, the site of ancient Babylon and as far as the rest of the world is concerned, "by peace, destroyed many."
GWB never showed mercy when he was governor of Texas to any death row prisoner, and took his "my way or the highway" ideas all the way to deliberately circumventing the right of prisoners to a fair trial as is shown in Gitmo. Some example of standing up for "freedom and democracy." A democratic society, a free society, has no need to circumvent its own laws in order to unlawfully hold prisoners, denying them any defense.
How is the rest of the world not supposed to have seen America then as an evil empire when the government preaches "freedom" but denies that freedom when it suits its purposes?
And all the while Americans' own rights were being whittled away in the name of preventing another 9/11. They've now got a Predator (I think it is called a Predator) plane flying the border between the US and the Canadian province of Manitoba. It's a spy plane that can tell what's on the ground. Supposedly it is for stopping any drug smuggling and illegal border crossings and such things.
I have no doubt there is some drug smuggling going on. It's a long border there through thick woods and swamps and lakes and whatnot, but Manitoba is a nothing province. No big time anything. We have had a couple of Americans crossing illegally into Canada from that border the last couple of years. Due to the terrain and the weather, they were very grateful to be found by our police in time for their lives to be saved by our socialized health care system. It is so isolated, you can't just walk across the border in either direction and find yourself in a town. Without being found, you have a better chance of dying than actually making it anywhere at all.
For the sake of one drug smuggler a year being caught, it hardly seems worth a ten million dollar investment. And it hardly seems worth the violation .of privacy to have a spy plane that can track every movement for ten kilometers on either side of the border.
It makes me think of the Berlin Wall and how the Communists told their people it was to keep them safe from all the folks on the western side who might want to illegally enter the DDR. Yeah, right. Canadians will not be flooding the border trying to get out of Canada, and given the erosion of freedom in the US, freedoms that actually count as opposed to freedoms that don't, it would be pretty easy to turn those planes on their own people, to prevent Americans from escaping a right-wing fascist government. Anything used to keep people out, can also be used to keep people in.
I'm not saying GWB is THE Anti-Christ (Cheney just might be, on the other hand *said tongue in cheek*) but it seems to me that given what he did, evangelical Christians should have been all worried about him being the Anti-Christ and yet many evangelicals supported him and his policies, as though he was a small "m" messiah.
I suppose you will think that this is about politics more than religion, but it's not, although I may have worded my thoughts poorly. The gist of what I'm trying to say/ask, is how it is that evangelicals pick one over the other as fitting the idea of an Anti-Christ. In terms of what Jesus said about there being "many" anti-christs, how does GWB not qualify for that job description?
Monday, January 26, 2009
Yet more on charity, clarifications
Hmm.. I think a clarification is in order as to what I think should happen. It's not that I don't think that we should give to the poor - perish the thought! I think that churches and individuals and private programs (for the atheist) should be the way we take care of our poor and needy.
When I say I have a problem with the government forcing me to give them yet more money ... that's what I have a problem with. I don't trust them. Being a government, they have to make rules and paperwork and all sorts of odd things to decide who gets and who does not. And I don't like socialism, because it depends on a large government to run it. I believe it will be inherently corrupt and/or mismanaged. It's been well proven that it's more helpful to hand a small loan to a responsible person than to have a government set up a system. It's more helpful to send a village a flock of chickens than to send them a beaurocrat with a checkbook.
What the Bible sets out is two different sets of rules to deal with the poor. In the OT, the farmers (agrarian capitalism*) were required to tithe (Dr. McGee says that their various tithes added up to 30% or so), they were required to let gleaners in, they were required to be kind to the widow, the orphan and the traveller. But that "required" was required by the Torah - not by soliders and tax collectors! And then those who were faithful in this regard were blessed yet more by God, and the cycle of blessing continued... that's the way it should be. Good stewards get more to be good stewards with, bad stewards get less. And that's the way Jesus said He works.
In the NT, we are enjoined to give to those who ask of us. We are enjoined to again be kind to the poor, to not play favorites, etc. But this gives us the opportunity to develop charity in our hearts and to be blessed in our giving and in our sacrifice. We are supposed to be in church networks where a differentiation can be made between those in need and those who are goofing off. Remember Stephen? Before he was martyred he was in charge of the charity, going around to the various homes and getting to know people and see what they needed so the goods could be shared out effectively. That is one of the purposes of a church family - folks who know you, who can step up.
Having a government tax me for the purpose of sharing my money in ways I don't even know is of no spiritual use whatsoever. It doesn't do anything for giver or givee other than provide some minimum phyiscal good. Is that nothing? Of course not. But it's not enough. And it's badly used. It's abused by some, unused by others in need, it's a system full of holes and lumps and bumps. The value of having charity dispensed by people who might potentially know those in need is that they'll know what is needed and how much. Does this person really need some help getting a job? Or are they permanently disabled, and just need to be put on the church rolls? Is this person needing a little extra food, help paying medical bills... you get the idea. People are individuals, and they should be treated that way by people expressing compassion. In contrast, when individuals are taxed so that the government can step in to provide charity, individuals have less of their own funds to be charitable with and become unable to meet the needs around them.
Now, you want to know... does MY church do this stuff? Yes, yes it does. If you are hungry and go to my church and ask for food, they'll give you a sack of groceries. There's a rotation of churches that provide hot, homecooked meals to the homeless all over my town (we have a large homeless population here). In fact, I think 85% or more of the folks serving the homeless and the programs for the homeless are run by churches. I know my church also offers financial assistance, on a case by case basis. They put "we need pasta and toilet paper" in the bulletin, and then the church members bring it in and it gets shared out.
People, individuals, are ultimately the best vehicle to offer charity and support to those around them. I don't think you can sway me from that position - and *that's* why I don't like socialism. Well, one of the reasons.
As far as the reason to have a government - I think it's to keep us from killing each other, from being killed by neighbor nations, from stealing... it's there to enforce the "thou shalt nots" rather than enforce the "shoulds". I want a MINIMAL government primarily consisting of police, fire department, infrastructure, and military.
..........
And on to the "points" clarification. :) No! I don't think that God was trying to tell me that the Western Church is Laodicean. I think He was trying to get with me about myself. When I say He's been pointing me in a certain direction, it means that wherever I go, I encounter things that make me think the same thoughts. Like, I am reading through My Utmost for His Highest right now - but I'm not on the date I'm "supposed" to be since I just start my new devotional at the beginning, even if it's not January 1. Likewise, I read 4 chapters of my Bible every day, reading it through every year, but I skip from the OT to the NT and my reading isn't tied to my devotional. And then I get Christian books, and listen to sermons, and and and... and when I start hearing the same theme from more than a couple of those places in the same day or two, I perk up my ears because I figure it's God saying, "Hey Hearth - you need to pay some extra attention to this".
When I wrote that entry, I was getting a lot of "Hearth, I want you to love Me for my own sake. I need to you get deeper, I need you to be more dependent on Me, I want you to give more, I want you to be more awake to this situation". And I wanted to know if you get the same sort of thing. Not on the same subject. We're two different women, I don't expect us to get the same message. I was just wondering if this is something that you are sensitive to as well.
* They were definitely out for their own profit, but loaning at interest was forbidden to them. Wall Street/Hard capitalism is based on that. Hard industrialism, or use of people as virtual slaves without taking care of them, was permitted - slavery was permitted - but they were supposed to love and care for their servants as part of their households, and free them after seven years if they were fellow Israelites. Hardly the same as working for your entire life in a sweatshop.
When I say I have a problem with the government forcing me to give them yet more money ... that's what I have a problem with. I don't trust them. Being a government, they have to make rules and paperwork and all sorts of odd things to decide who gets and who does not. And I don't like socialism, because it depends on a large government to run it. I believe it will be inherently corrupt and/or mismanaged. It's been well proven that it's more helpful to hand a small loan to a responsible person than to have a government set up a system. It's more helpful to send a village a flock of chickens than to send them a beaurocrat with a checkbook.
What the Bible sets out is two different sets of rules to deal with the poor. In the OT, the farmers (agrarian capitalism*) were required to tithe (Dr. McGee says that their various tithes added up to 30% or so), they were required to let gleaners in, they were required to be kind to the widow, the orphan and the traveller. But that "required" was required by the Torah - not by soliders and tax collectors! And then those who were faithful in this regard were blessed yet more by God, and the cycle of blessing continued... that's the way it should be. Good stewards get more to be good stewards with, bad stewards get less. And that's the way Jesus said He works.
In the NT, we are enjoined to give to those who ask of us. We are enjoined to again be kind to the poor, to not play favorites, etc. But this gives us the opportunity to develop charity in our hearts and to be blessed in our giving and in our sacrifice. We are supposed to be in church networks where a differentiation can be made between those in need and those who are goofing off. Remember Stephen? Before he was martyred he was in charge of the charity, going around to the various homes and getting to know people and see what they needed so the goods could be shared out effectively. That is one of the purposes of a church family - folks who know you, who can step up.
Having a government tax me for the purpose of sharing my money in ways I don't even know is of no spiritual use whatsoever. It doesn't do anything for giver or givee other than provide some minimum phyiscal good. Is that nothing? Of course not. But it's not enough. And it's badly used. It's abused by some, unused by others in need, it's a system full of holes and lumps and bumps. The value of having charity dispensed by people who might potentially know those in need is that they'll know what is needed and how much. Does this person really need some help getting a job? Or are they permanently disabled, and just need to be put on the church rolls? Is this person needing a little extra food, help paying medical bills... you get the idea. People are individuals, and they should be treated that way by people expressing compassion. In contrast, when individuals are taxed so that the government can step in to provide charity, individuals have less of their own funds to be charitable with and become unable to meet the needs around them.
Now, you want to know... does MY church do this stuff? Yes, yes it does. If you are hungry and go to my church and ask for food, they'll give you a sack of groceries. There's a rotation of churches that provide hot, homecooked meals to the homeless all over my town (we have a large homeless population here). In fact, I think 85% or more of the folks serving the homeless and the programs for the homeless are run by churches. I know my church also offers financial assistance, on a case by case basis. They put "we need pasta and toilet paper" in the bulletin, and then the church members bring it in and it gets shared out.
People, individuals, are ultimately the best vehicle to offer charity and support to those around them. I don't think you can sway me from that position - and *that's* why I don't like socialism. Well, one of the reasons.
As far as the reason to have a government - I think it's to keep us from killing each other, from being killed by neighbor nations, from stealing... it's there to enforce the "thou shalt nots" rather than enforce the "shoulds". I want a MINIMAL government primarily consisting of police, fire department, infrastructure, and military.
..........
And on to the "points" clarification. :) No! I don't think that God was trying to tell me that the Western Church is Laodicean. I think He was trying to get with me about myself. When I say He's been pointing me in a certain direction, it means that wherever I go, I encounter things that make me think the same thoughts. Like, I am reading through My Utmost for His Highest right now - but I'm not on the date I'm "supposed" to be since I just start my new devotional at the beginning, even if it's not January 1. Likewise, I read 4 chapters of my Bible every day, reading it through every year, but I skip from the OT to the NT and my reading isn't tied to my devotional. And then I get Christian books, and listen to sermons, and and and... and when I start hearing the same theme from more than a couple of those places in the same day or two, I perk up my ears because I figure it's God saying, "Hey Hearth - you need to pay some extra attention to this".
When I wrote that entry, I was getting a lot of "Hearth, I want you to love Me for my own sake. I need to you get deeper, I need you to be more dependent on Me, I want you to give more, I want you to be more awake to this situation". And I wanted to know if you get the same sort of thing. Not on the same subject. We're two different women, I don't expect us to get the same message. I was just wondering if this is something that you are sensitive to as well.
* They were definitely out for their own profit, but loaning at interest was forbidden to them. Wall Street/Hard capitalism is based on that. Hard industrialism, or use of people as virtual slaves without taking care of them, was permitted - slavery was permitted - but they were supposed to love and care for their servants as part of their households, and free them after seven years if they were fellow Israelites. Hardly the same as working for your entire life in a sweatshop.
Friday, January 23, 2009
An apology and a clarification
I reread my last post and I think it comes across as mean or something so I want to apologize in case it comes across like that to you and also to clarify now that I have an actual moment to myself. I was in such a hurry to post that I didn't do my usual rereading before I posted.
One thing I've noticed during our conversations, both here and before this, via email, is that we draw different mental lines around what we consider spiritual or religious topics. So to try and clarify where things that I write might seem contradictory to you, while I firmly believe that the kingdom of God has nothing in common with the kingdoms of this world and that Christians can't commit fully to either one without the other suffering, at the same time, I see everything in this world, including worldly politics and civics as something that informs and elaborates on how God wants us to live. Everything in the world reminds me of God in one way or the other. I don't draw a line whereby I rationalize that "thou shalt not kill" doesn't include everyone, at every time, including wars and self-defense. Every subject has a God aspect to it, in the WWJD sense. To me, faith isn't an airy-fairy, head-in-the-clouds feeling, it is an act, a rejoicing whenever mercy (above all mercy) is shown even in matters that appear to be secular.
My rejection of *this* world, in the sense of preferring to not vote, etc, does not mean that I don't have an interest in politics. I am always glad when laws of the state are as fair as they can be in a world that is not run God. I don't expect the world to run by God's laws but I appreciate it when they coincide on the larger matters of mercy. I would love if there was no one poor in the world, no one hungry, no one in jail, and everyone loved each other. If the state works in its limited way to level the playing field for all its citizens, although it can't legislate actually caring, it is a step in the right direction. The final step, of course, I believe only Jesus and His return can accomplish. Still, every now and then, to hear the small still voice of compassion instead of the whirlwind of self-interest, is a grace.
But civics, politics, and how states act towards their citizens is certainly relevant to me as a citizen in this world. I can be glad when the state cares for its poor and at the same time not expect the state to adopt Christian values. Unless Christians are being forced to engage in same-sex unions against their will, it does not matter to me or involve me, that I would deny others something that doesn't affect most people at all. Poverty and hopelessness can't be addressed by a 'just pull yourself up by your bootstraps." Not all are born with boots on their feet. First you feed the hungry, then once their physical hunger has been satisfied, then one can address their spiritual condition. But it's useless to offer someone who asks for bread, a stone or a prayer.
And with regards to the discussion about socialism and capitalism, it is possible that what you refer to as "soft" capitalism is what I refer to as socialism. But what I seem not to understand is how Christians pick and choose which causes they think are importantly Christian, as to what to advocate the state for and what not.
So my interest in that isn't about civics in a secular way, but rather how Christians respond to the secular. Like why same sex marriage is worth protesting over but not universal affordable health care which affects a lot more people. Why abortion is protested but addressing social ills like poverty, lack of education and the hopelessness many people feel is not addressed, because of a feeling that many express that the poor and hopeless have somehow brought it on themselves. We are told to "not store up treasure on earth." A less capitalistic idea I can't think of.
And even if people do bring on a lot of their problems on themselves - what does it matter in the context of the New Testament? When Jesus says if a man asks you to walk with him one mile, we are to walk with him two, and if he asks for our coat, we are to give him - what was it? - our robe or something? Nothing here about the asker completing a quiz so that we can determine whether giving our coat or walking that extra mile is good stewardship.
Nowhere do I read an example whereby we first must determine their fitness for our help as Christians.
Even the "if a man does not work, neither shall he eat" which many Christians use to justify a lack of compassion for chronic welfare families, who in fact might actually not want to work, might actually be parasites on society - we've been given no instruction other than to give to whomever asks us. Jesus referred to the lilies of the field and how they did not work. Jesus and his disciples could easily be considered bums since they were sent out to beg.
Now society is not obligated to help anyone on a secular level, but when society does look after the least of them, how is that not better for everyone? Who could possibly object to that? That does not mean that as a Christian I would start advocating the state to put this into law, but if it becomes a law, then I would be very happy.
As to your last part, about how you feel that when God has a point to make He keeps pointing out signs. Again, I don't really relate in the sense that I know the church is far, far away from where it should be and has become obsessed with wealth and *this* world. So for me the sticking point is your use of the word "point." When it comes to how far the church has fallen from grace, I've always known that so I don't know why God would point me to something that is as evident as the nose on my face.
So I am a little confused in what you were saying there: are you saying that the fallen state of the church was not known to you and therefore you feel that God had to make a special point to point it out to you? Or? Because, yes, of course, I believe that God can make points to people of things they are missing. But specifically the failure of the church (in the broadest sense as a community of believers) is not a new idea to me, so it just seems that while I am sure there are many things I miss and that my understanding of many things is flawed and could do with pointers, the state of the church is not one of them.
Anyway, I hope I've explained my thinking better in this post and again, I truly apologize if anything I wrote came across as abrasive.
The photos you sent were lovely; I am envious, sitting here, once again freezing my butt off.
One thing I've noticed during our conversations, both here and before this, via email, is that we draw different mental lines around what we consider spiritual or religious topics. So to try and clarify where things that I write might seem contradictory to you, while I firmly believe that the kingdom of God has nothing in common with the kingdoms of this world and that Christians can't commit fully to either one without the other suffering, at the same time, I see everything in this world, including worldly politics and civics as something that informs and elaborates on how God wants us to live. Everything in the world reminds me of God in one way or the other. I don't draw a line whereby I rationalize that "thou shalt not kill" doesn't include everyone, at every time, including wars and self-defense. Every subject has a God aspect to it, in the WWJD sense. To me, faith isn't an airy-fairy, head-in-the-clouds feeling, it is an act, a rejoicing whenever mercy (above all mercy) is shown even in matters that appear to be secular.
My rejection of *this* world, in the sense of preferring to not vote, etc, does not mean that I don't have an interest in politics. I am always glad when laws of the state are as fair as they can be in a world that is not run God. I don't expect the world to run by God's laws but I appreciate it when they coincide on the larger matters of mercy. I would love if there was no one poor in the world, no one hungry, no one in jail, and everyone loved each other. If the state works in its limited way to level the playing field for all its citizens, although it can't legislate actually caring, it is a step in the right direction. The final step, of course, I believe only Jesus and His return can accomplish. Still, every now and then, to hear the small still voice of compassion instead of the whirlwind of self-interest, is a grace.
But civics, politics, and how states act towards their citizens is certainly relevant to me as a citizen in this world. I can be glad when the state cares for its poor and at the same time not expect the state to adopt Christian values. Unless Christians are being forced to engage in same-sex unions against their will, it does not matter to me or involve me, that I would deny others something that doesn't affect most people at all. Poverty and hopelessness can't be addressed by a 'just pull yourself up by your bootstraps." Not all are born with boots on their feet. First you feed the hungry, then once their physical hunger has been satisfied, then one can address their spiritual condition. But it's useless to offer someone who asks for bread, a stone or a prayer.
And with regards to the discussion about socialism and capitalism, it is possible that what you refer to as "soft" capitalism is what I refer to as socialism. But what I seem not to understand is how Christians pick and choose which causes they think are importantly Christian, as to what to advocate the state for and what not.
So my interest in that isn't about civics in a secular way, but rather how Christians respond to the secular. Like why same sex marriage is worth protesting over but not universal affordable health care which affects a lot more people. Why abortion is protested but addressing social ills like poverty, lack of education and the hopelessness many people feel is not addressed, because of a feeling that many express that the poor and hopeless have somehow brought it on themselves. We are told to "not store up treasure on earth." A less capitalistic idea I can't think of.
And even if people do bring on a lot of their problems on themselves - what does it matter in the context of the New Testament? When Jesus says if a man asks you to walk with him one mile, we are to walk with him two, and if he asks for our coat, we are to give him - what was it? - our robe or something? Nothing here about the asker completing a quiz so that we can determine whether giving our coat or walking that extra mile is good stewardship.
Nowhere do I read an example whereby we first must determine their fitness for our help as Christians.
Even the "if a man does not work, neither shall he eat" which many Christians use to justify a lack of compassion for chronic welfare families, who in fact might actually not want to work, might actually be parasites on society - we've been given no instruction other than to give to whomever asks us. Jesus referred to the lilies of the field and how they did not work. Jesus and his disciples could easily be considered bums since they were sent out to beg.
Now society is not obligated to help anyone on a secular level, but when society does look after the least of them, how is that not better for everyone? Who could possibly object to that? That does not mean that as a Christian I would start advocating the state to put this into law, but if it becomes a law, then I would be very happy.
As to your last part, about how you feel that when God has a point to make He keeps pointing out signs. Again, I don't really relate in the sense that I know the church is far, far away from where it should be and has become obsessed with wealth and *this* world. So for me the sticking point is your use of the word "point." When it comes to how far the church has fallen from grace, I've always known that so I don't know why God would point me to something that is as evident as the nose on my face.
So I am a little confused in what you were saying there: are you saying that the fallen state of the church was not known to you and therefore you feel that God had to make a special point to point it out to you? Or? Because, yes, of course, I believe that God can make points to people of things they are missing. But specifically the failure of the church (in the broadest sense as a community of believers) is not a new idea to me, so it just seems that while I am sure there are many things I miss and that my understanding of many things is flawed and could do with pointers, the state of the church is not one of them.
Anyway, I hope I've explained my thinking better in this post and again, I truly apologize if anything I wrote came across as abrasive.
The photos you sent were lovely; I am envious, sitting here, once again freezing my butt off.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
more
First, on this historic and wonderful day, I want to say how proud I am today to be your neighbor. If things had gone a little better here on our end, we would have been in the States today to be a part of history. The world's thoughts and prayers are with you all and with President Obama. (It just feels so darned good to print that after eight years of the other guy).
Okay, now, ironic? I don't see it as even vaguely in the same category to put the human right of health care that is not based on an ability to pay, or taxing wealthy people so that those who have nothing at all as being on the same level as same sex marriage. One is giving people their God-given rights, and the other, the same-sex marriage deal, is imposing your values and taking away from someone else something that affects you not at all.
Even if you don't agree that same-sex marriage is some kind of God-given right and even if you feel it is an out and out sin - is it somehow more a sin than the poverty, violence and despair that afflicts the inner cities of the wealthiest nation on earth?
As far as the definition you got in civics class, are you saying that it was different from the definition on the link? I'd really like to see your definition on a link somewhere. It reminds me of when we were living in East Germany, shortly after the Wall fell and one of the most popular books in English in the university library was Elmer Gantry. If you recall, that novel was about a slime-ball preacher who was fleecing the flock to line his own pockets.
That book was the communist's definition of evil, decadent America and of Christianity. You could tell by what was underlined by students in pencil and the comments scribbled next to them for essays. I've always had the feeling that something similar must go on in American schools when it comes to socialism and communism.
As to how we got into it, well, we got into this subject not from the point of civics but rather from the point of Christian behaviour. I was highly confused by the many folks screaming "socialism" when it comes to loving their neighbor in terms of things like health care.
I would way rather pay higher taxes so that my trailer park neighbours have the same access to health care that I do, then pay lower taxes and let them do with second-hand care or none at all, or have to go into debt so far that they will never have a hope of getting out.
All of society benefits from that. There's a reason infant mortality is higher in the States than it is in countries with a socially responsible medicare system, like Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom or France.
As to your other question, no, I can't say I keep coming across the same thing. I'm not sure what you mean when God is trying to make a point. About what? What would you come across? I try to be open to whatever crosses my path in the day so that I don't miss an opportunity to be, well, nice, or something. In case someone needed an encouraging word. Sometimes I will come across insights while doing certain things, something that makes clearer a thing I've wondered about. But my prayer is always for God to make things clearer to me, to push me out of my comfort zone. Since I'm actively asking for it, I wouldn't necessary consider something along those lines to be God making a point. Aren't points usually made when you're not open to something?
My main prayers and concerns these days are all about my brother. I don't want to bother him or push him in any direction but I want to be open for him to confide in me. If my advice is asked, I give it. Otherwise I don't. He did call the other day and asked my advice regarding his marriage and I've been worried that I said all the wrong things.
Sorry if this is all over the place - I have one eye on the inaugeration and the other on this, and my mind divided between that and other things I have to do today.
Okay, now, ironic? I don't see it as even vaguely in the same category to put the human right of health care that is not based on an ability to pay, or taxing wealthy people so that those who have nothing at all as being on the same level as same sex marriage. One is giving people their God-given rights, and the other, the same-sex marriage deal, is imposing your values and taking away from someone else something that affects you not at all.
Even if you don't agree that same-sex marriage is some kind of God-given right and even if you feel it is an out and out sin - is it somehow more a sin than the poverty, violence and despair that afflicts the inner cities of the wealthiest nation on earth?
As far as the definition you got in civics class, are you saying that it was different from the definition on the link? I'd really like to see your definition on a link somewhere. It reminds me of when we were living in East Germany, shortly after the Wall fell and one of the most popular books in English in the university library was Elmer Gantry. If you recall, that novel was about a slime-ball preacher who was fleecing the flock to line his own pockets.
That book was the communist's definition of evil, decadent America and of Christianity. You could tell by what was underlined by students in pencil and the comments scribbled next to them for essays. I've always had the feeling that something similar must go on in American schools when it comes to socialism and communism.
As to how we got into it, well, we got into this subject not from the point of civics but rather from the point of Christian behaviour. I was highly confused by the many folks screaming "socialism" when it comes to loving their neighbor in terms of things like health care.
I would way rather pay higher taxes so that my trailer park neighbours have the same access to health care that I do, then pay lower taxes and let them do with second-hand care or none at all, or have to go into debt so far that they will never have a hope of getting out.
All of society benefits from that. There's a reason infant mortality is higher in the States than it is in countries with a socially responsible medicare system, like Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom or France.
As to your other question, no, I can't say I keep coming across the same thing. I'm not sure what you mean when God is trying to make a point. About what? What would you come across? I try to be open to whatever crosses my path in the day so that I don't miss an opportunity to be, well, nice, or something. In case someone needed an encouraging word. Sometimes I will come across insights while doing certain things, something that makes clearer a thing I've wondered about. But my prayer is always for God to make things clearer to me, to push me out of my comfort zone. Since I'm actively asking for it, I wouldn't necessary consider something along those lines to be God making a point. Aren't points usually made when you're not open to something?
My main prayers and concerns these days are all about my brother. I don't want to bother him or push him in any direction but I want to be open for him to confide in me. If my advice is asked, I give it. Otherwise I don't. He did call the other day and asked my advice regarding his marriage and I've been worried that I said all the wrong things.
Sorry if this is all over the place - I have one eye on the inaugeration and the other on this, and my mind divided between that and other things I have to do today.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Moderately Ironic
I am overawed at what a bad six months you've had. You are in my prayers, daily. I'm sorry to hear about the extreme cold and the well and the... egads. :( Dreadful.
As for socialism/communism, that's the definition we got in civics class. Also, I lived in China for a year as a child, having experienced socialism at first hand. (I can't call anything with a ruling class communism, no matter what *they* call it). "Study hard, or you'll end up sweeping donkey dung off the streets in -40F weather!" Believe me, pretty it was not.
Although I'm not particularly interested in civics as a conversational topic, for purposes of our discussion, let's call wall-street capitalism "hard" capitalism (I would also call pre-union industrial revolution capitalism "hard" capitalism), whereas the system of landowners set up in OT times I'd call "agrarian capitalism". I don't think we are allowed to use fellow humans in ways we wouldn't use animals in order to make more money. "Hard" capitalism may very well be anti-Christian, I will cede that point with good cheer.
However, that said... when I read the OT, what I see is that God decreed a tithe, He decreed that you should let the gleaners through, He decreed that you should be kind and generous to the widow, the orphan, the sojourner. But there was no system of police to enforce those laws. It was in faith that you brought forth your offering - and in Malachi, there is the ONE PLACE in the Bible that we are still encouraged to test God, with our giving. When you (I/they) offer to the Lord, you are blessed in return. Much of the idea is to see, as in Matthew, who is a good steward of what they've been given and who is not. (And sorry for the confusion ... "don't work/don't eat is a NT thing given by Paul to the problem of folks living off the bounty of the church).
We also see in the NT that children are to take care of their parents, that generosity to the family is the first circle of giving (ie don't send grandma to the church for groceries, you go buy them for her). Widows should be "widows indeed", and there are many places where though it enjoins generosity and sharing, that it also puts limits on it so that generosity shouldn't be abused.
So, basically - I believe that the whole system is a man and God transaction, where our right hand shouldn't know what our left hand is doing, and I don't want the government in it. (I especially do not as the government often chooses to fund things I would rather not see my money used for).
And yes, the title refers to the irony... your essay indicates that you feel we should be forced to be generous, as we can't be trusted to be on our own, and you chided me not long ago in regards to wanting to keep the definition of marriage static. 'Tis true, none shall want in the Millenial Kingdom, and there won't be gay marriage either. Perhaps we're both trying to legislate different aspects of morality? (smiles).
---------
On to something completely different. :) You know how when God is trying to make a point, you come across the same thoughts again and again from different sources? (This happens to me often).
So, first I read the book CrazyLove (you can google it, the pastor did vids for half of it). The book confronted the Western Christian with the lukewarm behavior of most churchgoers and contrasted that with the amazing love that God has for us, getting very personally convicting about being crazier in our own love for our Lord. It was very heartening to me, of course it challenged me in several areas - but I got a lot out of it.
Then yesterday in sermon, my pastor went over the first half of Daniel chapter 9, and discussed contrition, repentance, and praying for mercy. He prayed the prayer of Daniel, modified for the US - as he sees the same sins of Israel pre-Babylonian captivity in our fair land. (And who does not?)
I'm feeling rather like the church (or at least the church I have contact with) is being chivvied to a plane where we realise how close we are to full-fledged Laodecia-ness, and called to repent and beg from Christ all that He has offered us. To get closer, to be more in tune with God, to be more intense in our worship and our giving, and our serving - to be more God focused. I will say that the church I go to rocks in this regard. It's not the denomination, it's the particular mix, and a good pastor.
Have you felt any of that in your own studies lately? I know you don't go to church, but is any of that flowing towards you?
Hoping (and praying) that things are better on your end,
Hearth
As for socialism/communism, that's the definition we got in civics class. Also, I lived in China for a year as a child, having experienced socialism at first hand. (I can't call anything with a ruling class communism, no matter what *they* call it). "Study hard, or you'll end up sweeping donkey dung off the streets in -40F weather!" Believe me, pretty it was not.
Although I'm not particularly interested in civics as a conversational topic, for purposes of our discussion, let's call wall-street capitalism "hard" capitalism (I would also call pre-union industrial revolution capitalism "hard" capitalism), whereas the system of landowners set up in OT times I'd call "agrarian capitalism". I don't think we are allowed to use fellow humans in ways we wouldn't use animals in order to make more money. "Hard" capitalism may very well be anti-Christian, I will cede that point with good cheer.
However, that said... when I read the OT, what I see is that God decreed a tithe, He decreed that you should let the gleaners through, He decreed that you should be kind and generous to the widow, the orphan, the sojourner. But there was no system of police to enforce those laws. It was in faith that you brought forth your offering - and in Malachi, there is the ONE PLACE in the Bible that we are still encouraged to test God, with our giving. When you (I/they) offer to the Lord, you are blessed in return. Much of the idea is to see, as in Matthew, who is a good steward of what they've been given and who is not. (And sorry for the confusion ... "don't work/don't eat is a NT thing given by Paul to the problem of folks living off the bounty of the church).
We also see in the NT that children are to take care of their parents, that generosity to the family is the first circle of giving (ie don't send grandma to the church for groceries, you go buy them for her). Widows should be "widows indeed", and there are many places where though it enjoins generosity and sharing, that it also puts limits on it so that generosity shouldn't be abused.
So, basically - I believe that the whole system is a man and God transaction, where our right hand shouldn't know what our left hand is doing, and I don't want the government in it. (I especially do not as the government often chooses to fund things I would rather not see my money used for).
And yes, the title refers to the irony... your essay indicates that you feel we should be forced to be generous, as we can't be trusted to be on our own, and you chided me not long ago in regards to wanting to keep the definition of marriage static. 'Tis true, none shall want in the Millenial Kingdom, and there won't be gay marriage either. Perhaps we're both trying to legislate different aspects of morality? (smiles).
---------
On to something completely different. :) You know how when God is trying to make a point, you come across the same thoughts again and again from different sources? (This happens to me often).
So, first I read the book CrazyLove (you can google it, the pastor did vids for half of it). The book confronted the Western Christian with the lukewarm behavior of most churchgoers and contrasted that with the amazing love that God has for us, getting very personally convicting about being crazier in our own love for our Lord. It was very heartening to me, of course it challenged me in several areas - but I got a lot out of it.
Then yesterday in sermon, my pastor went over the first half of Daniel chapter 9, and discussed contrition, repentance, and praying for mercy. He prayed the prayer of Daniel, modified for the US - as he sees the same sins of Israel pre-Babylonian captivity in our fair land. (And who does not?)
I'm feeling rather like the church (or at least the church I have contact with) is being chivvied to a plane where we realise how close we are to full-fledged Laodecia-ness, and called to repent and beg from Christ all that He has offered us. To get closer, to be more in tune with God, to be more intense in our worship and our giving, and our serving - to be more God focused. I will say that the church I go to rocks in this regard. It's not the denomination, it's the particular mix, and a good pastor.
Have you felt any of that in your own studies lately? I know you don't go to church, but is any of that flowing towards you?
Hoping (and praying) that things are better on your end,
Hearth
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Definitions of socialism and communism
Sorry to have been absent so long. I can't say this year is off to a good start. The broken artesian well was capped successfully, but there is a break in the pipe that Trenching Guy #1 broke, and right now, with windchills that are reaching -50C (yep, you read that right) it isn't possible to fix it. And my horses broke out of their pasture. Since I am not sure how - all I have seen is rabbit tracks over the fence line, they are in the barn. Of course, with weather like this, they'd be in the barn anyway but I have to carry water several times a day from the house as I have no water in the barn due to the break in the pipe.
Have I ever mentioned that I hate winter??? Can I repeat that just for the satisfaction of it: I HATE winter.
First of all, I have never heard socialism or communism defined in quite the way you do. Some of it may be a matter of choice of words. So in order that we both know what the other is talking about this is my definition and understanding of both socialism and communism.
One of the main mistakes you make, is the idea that there is no private income or jobs or businesses under socialism. Not true as the link should make clear. Socialism is the next evolution up from capitalism. Capitalism is necessary as a step up from feudalism but for a society to stop at capitalism is to refuse to evolve any further. Socialism has nothing at all to do with individuals not working because everything is just given to them.
We have seen the failure of communism Soviet-style, and this market crash thing which was based on a free capitalist market, was caused precisely because the US government did not have proper controls in place on financial institutions. What is the government turning to now in order to prevent a depression? Socialism. Which does not mean that the government will take away all private business but simply that the government will regulate certain businesses which can have a national impact.
We are now paying the price for US style capitalism. Bail-outs for the big financial institutions are not about helping the rich, except insofar as those who are against the bail-outs seem to ignore the fact that it is the working stiff who suffers in the long run.
Capitalism as it has been practised in the US traditionally is in its death throes. People cannot be counted on to do the right thing, they cannot be counted on to regulate their own greed. It is a conflict of interest. Greenspan stated before the Senate, that he didn't regulate banks and whatnot because he thought their own capitalist sense of self-preservation would stop them from going as far as they did.
Canada and other nations, are not in the same predicament as the US because we never had that silly idea that banks can regulate themselves. There is a fall-out and loss of jobs world-wide because markets are interlinked
When you talk about how in socialism people are "forced" to give part of their hard-earned goods to "the government," you say that as thought that is a bad thing. In an ideal world, a communist world, people would do good things because they are good. That is not the case with this current, fallen world. Obviously this is a large subject and I don't have the time to address every point, the the heart of your argument for capitalism as Biblically justified, seems undermined by Cain's comment to God, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
That seems to be the gist of the whole capitalism/socialism/communism argument. Capitalism is based on profit and on the interests of the individual, on whatever the market can bear. Capitalism doesn't care if someone dies of hunger if the going price for bread is such-and-such an amount. It is the price that determines how one acts, not morality - except as one chooses to have a conscience.
I certainly agree that one cannot force someone to actually care but you can, in some instances, by law, make sure that people do what is morally right, which is something that every society that is not in outright chaos attempts to do. Anarchy is good for no one. If God created the world, then there is a morality that permeates the world and what some Christians like to call that `God-shaped' hole inside of all of us. That is what socialism is about - you can't always wait for people to do the right thing. You have to educate them as to how to do the right thing and you have to sometimes shame them into doing the right thing.
That is why we have laws against homicide, speeding, stealing, etc. Because we don't count on all people to do good. We don't allow people to do just whatever the hell they like. that would be anarchy and anarchy was certainly not the model God puts out for us in either the NT or the OT.
The laws against homicide, speeding and stealing etc, are in place for the greater good. Making sure that there is more equality, for example, in health care, that whether you live or die is not so based on whether you can afford to live is based on the idea that we are all equal under God but the playing field is not equal. Opportunities are not equal. And sometimes bad things happen to perfectly good people through no fault of their own as the story of Job shows us.
In Ecclesiastes, we are told: There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt.
It was not a free-for-all capitalist society that the OT or Judaism advocated. With wealth came responsibility and it was not all voluntary. The laws of tithing in the OT were not voluntary, neither was the observance of the Sabbath day as a day of rest.
As far as your quote about "whoever doesn't work, neither shall he eat," I can't think of an actual example of that being followed in the OT. Farmers were instructed to leave gleanings for the poor. Lenders were instructed to return the blankets of their debtors for the nighttime, regardless of the amount owed. Slaves had to be freed after a certain amount of years, and debts forgiven. In Leviticus 25, the idea of the rich and the poor was dealt with like this:
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family: After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him.
A family can be a family-family and it can be a nation family, as in Americans all are a nation family. There is no suggestion that everyone will ever be equal economically but there is a definite idea that families help each other, which Jesus took a step further in the story of the Good Samaritan.
These were Laws, not suggestions. Jesus also said famously that, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
He did not say this, in my understanding, because riches in and of themselves are sinful but rather because it seems to be a peculiar fact that the more people have, the less inclined they are to share. To take Paul's metaphor about Christians being part of one body and that no part ought to exalt itself above another, wealth exists to be used for the good of all humanity, not to be stored up by one individual for his or her own use.
And we are given an example - several in fact of the opposite situation, that of the capitalist rich man, Abigail's husband, who saw no reason to feed or share what he had with David's ragtag bag of outlaws. Or the rich man whom Jesus told to if he loved God, to give all that he had to the poor.
In Revelations 18 a whole society, a clearly capitalist society is warned about the consequences and the judgment that will befall it for its unabashed glorification of wealth: How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
As far as Anabaptists are concerned, they are more socialist than communist, in ideals as opposed to practice. I know of only one group that is communist and that would be the Hutterites. We do not live communally, we do not share resources or own things in common or any of that stuff. Mennonites live on privately own land, with private income from jobs that can range from farmer to politician. You could not pick your average Mennonite out of a crowd of anyone else. Most of us do not have buggies and the ones that do the horse-and-buggy thing don't own their horses in common, their barns in common or their houses in common, so there is nothing communist about them either. And I don't know of anyone who has had free labour in terms of barn-raisings.
Hutterites on the other hand, do not own anything as individuals and live in small colonies within the definition of communism. Each person contributes his or her labour and there are no individual bank accounts, only a community 'purse.' Each person gets what he needs to live in terms of a roof over his head (they don't live under one roof) and each person is expected to work at something on the colony.
Sorry if this is a little disjointed. It's such a big subject, and with everything else going on here, it's not that big on my mind.
Have I ever mentioned that I hate winter??? Can I repeat that just for the satisfaction of it: I HATE winter.
First of all, I have never heard socialism or communism defined in quite the way you do. Some of it may be a matter of choice of words. So in order that we both know what the other is talking about this is my definition and understanding of both socialism and communism.
One of the main mistakes you make, is the idea that there is no private income or jobs or businesses under socialism. Not true as the link should make clear. Socialism is the next evolution up from capitalism. Capitalism is necessary as a step up from feudalism but for a society to stop at capitalism is to refuse to evolve any further. Socialism has nothing at all to do with individuals not working because everything is just given to them.
We have seen the failure of communism Soviet-style, and this market crash thing which was based on a free capitalist market, was caused precisely because the US government did not have proper controls in place on financial institutions. What is the government turning to now in order to prevent a depression? Socialism. Which does not mean that the government will take away all private business but simply that the government will regulate certain businesses which can have a national impact.
We are now paying the price for US style capitalism. Bail-outs for the big financial institutions are not about helping the rich, except insofar as those who are against the bail-outs seem to ignore the fact that it is the working stiff who suffers in the long run.
Capitalism as it has been practised in the US traditionally is in its death throes. People cannot be counted on to do the right thing, they cannot be counted on to regulate their own greed. It is a conflict of interest. Greenspan stated before the Senate, that he didn't regulate banks and whatnot because he thought their own capitalist sense of self-preservation would stop them from going as far as they did.
Canada and other nations, are not in the same predicament as the US because we never had that silly idea that banks can regulate themselves. There is a fall-out and loss of jobs world-wide because markets are interlinked
When you talk about how in socialism people are "forced" to give part of their hard-earned goods to "the government," you say that as thought that is a bad thing. In an ideal world, a communist world, people would do good things because they are good. That is not the case with this current, fallen world. Obviously this is a large subject and I don't have the time to address every point, the the heart of your argument for capitalism as Biblically justified, seems undermined by Cain's comment to God, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
That seems to be the gist of the whole capitalism/socialism/communism argument. Capitalism is based on profit and on the interests of the individual, on whatever the market can bear. Capitalism doesn't care if someone dies of hunger if the going price for bread is such-and-such an amount. It is the price that determines how one acts, not morality - except as one chooses to have a conscience.
I certainly agree that one cannot force someone to actually care but you can, in some instances, by law, make sure that people do what is morally right, which is something that every society that is not in outright chaos attempts to do. Anarchy is good for no one. If God created the world, then there is a morality that permeates the world and what some Christians like to call that `God-shaped' hole inside of all of us. That is what socialism is about - you can't always wait for people to do the right thing. You have to educate them as to how to do the right thing and you have to sometimes shame them into doing the right thing.
That is why we have laws against homicide, speeding, stealing, etc. Because we don't count on all people to do good. We don't allow people to do just whatever the hell they like. that would be anarchy and anarchy was certainly not the model God puts out for us in either the NT or the OT.
The laws against homicide, speeding and stealing etc, are in place for the greater good. Making sure that there is more equality, for example, in health care, that whether you live or die is not so based on whether you can afford to live is based on the idea that we are all equal under God but the playing field is not equal. Opportunities are not equal. And sometimes bad things happen to perfectly good people through no fault of their own as the story of Job shows us.
In Ecclesiastes, we are told: There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt.
It was not a free-for-all capitalist society that the OT or Judaism advocated. With wealth came responsibility and it was not all voluntary. The laws of tithing in the OT were not voluntary, neither was the observance of the Sabbath day as a day of rest.
As far as your quote about "whoever doesn't work, neither shall he eat," I can't think of an actual example of that being followed in the OT. Farmers were instructed to leave gleanings for the poor. Lenders were instructed to return the blankets of their debtors for the nighttime, regardless of the amount owed. Slaves had to be freed after a certain amount of years, and debts forgiven. In Leviticus 25, the idea of the rich and the poor was dealt with like this:
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family: After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him.
A family can be a family-family and it can be a nation family, as in Americans all are a nation family. There is no suggestion that everyone will ever be equal economically but there is a definite idea that families help each other, which Jesus took a step further in the story of the Good Samaritan.
These were Laws, not suggestions. Jesus also said famously that, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
He did not say this, in my understanding, because riches in and of themselves are sinful but rather because it seems to be a peculiar fact that the more people have, the less inclined they are to share. To take Paul's metaphor about Christians being part of one body and that no part ought to exalt itself above another, wealth exists to be used for the good of all humanity, not to be stored up by one individual for his or her own use.
And we are given an example - several in fact of the opposite situation, that of the capitalist rich man, Abigail's husband, who saw no reason to feed or share what he had with David's ragtag bag of outlaws. Or the rich man whom Jesus told to if he loved God, to give all that he had to the poor.
In Revelations 18 a whole society, a clearly capitalist society is warned about the consequences and the judgment that will befall it for its unabashed glorification of wealth: How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
As far as Anabaptists are concerned, they are more socialist than communist, in ideals as opposed to practice. I know of only one group that is communist and that would be the Hutterites. We do not live communally, we do not share resources or own things in common or any of that stuff. Mennonites live on privately own land, with private income from jobs that can range from farmer to politician. You could not pick your average Mennonite out of a crowd of anyone else. Most of us do not have buggies and the ones that do the horse-and-buggy thing don't own their horses in common, their barns in common or their houses in common, so there is nothing communist about them either. And I don't know of anyone who has had free labour in terms of barn-raisings.
Hutterites on the other hand, do not own anything as individuals and live in small colonies within the definition of communism. Each person contributes his or her labour and there are no individual bank accounts, only a community 'purse.' Each person gets what he needs to live in terms of a roof over his head (they don't live under one roof) and each person is expected to work at something on the colony.
Sorry if this is a little disjointed. It's such a big subject, and with everything else going on here, it's not that big on my mind.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Gracious!
I've been mulling how to respond to your post, since I live thousands of miles away, pulling up in my minivan with tea and hot breadish products is out - and that's definitely what's called for. I am so very sorry to hear what a dreadful month you've had. You certainly didn't need any more unpleasantness. Know that you are in my prayers, as always.
As for communism vs. socialism, those are pretty basic definitions. Communism is the idealistic place that socialism aims for. Socialism is the administration thereof, and involves a government. I really don't have a problem with communism - it's very sensible, and likely to be a big part of Millenial society, when we get our heads on straight and realise that everything belongs to God anyway. (or not... doesn't He say everyone gets their OWN vine and fig tree? Is possessiveness part of humanity? Something to mull on quiet days).
I think Americans don't like government, big government, because we're from pioneer blood. And we identify with cowboys and Laura Ingalls. "Do for yourself, cut your own piece of land and make something of it, by your own bootstraps" etc. Government is something of a necessary evil. And we trust our neighbors, other good Americans, but not the folks in Washington. /shrug. (grin) Americans are weird, but there you are. A part of our national character.
New things: Reading a great book called, "Crazy Love" by Francis Chan. Apparently he has a website too (which I have not yet checked out). So far so great - and I think you could really get into the book. About halfway through, and he's laying into the western church as being lukewarm... with a self-test to check ones own lukewarmness. It's a very good, very inspirational read. My sisterfriend bought it for us jointly for Christmas, gave it to me to read first. :)
I seem to be getting chivvied into thinking about God's greatness and gloriousness. I envy you, with your farm. It's far too easy for me to spend days on end without seeing any proper nature at all... one of my New Year's resolutions is to spend more time at the beach. But... do you meditate on God Himself very often? How do you get there? I find it daunting and a bit scary, like standing at the top of a cliff wearing a hanglider for the very first time. I'm sure I'll be safe, but oh my!
Hugs, prayers...
Love,
hearth
As for communism vs. socialism, those are pretty basic definitions. Communism is the idealistic place that socialism aims for. Socialism is the administration thereof, and involves a government. I really don't have a problem with communism - it's very sensible, and likely to be a big part of Millenial society, when we get our heads on straight and realise that everything belongs to God anyway. (or not... doesn't He say everyone gets their OWN vine and fig tree? Is possessiveness part of humanity? Something to mull on quiet days).
I think Americans don't like government, big government, because we're from pioneer blood. And we identify with cowboys and Laura Ingalls. "Do for yourself, cut your own piece of land and make something of it, by your own bootstraps" etc. Government is something of a necessary evil. And we trust our neighbors, other good Americans, but not the folks in Washington. /shrug. (grin) Americans are weird, but there you are. A part of our national character.
New things: Reading a great book called, "Crazy Love" by Francis Chan. Apparently he has a website too (which I have not yet checked out). So far so great - and I think you could really get into the book. About halfway through, and he's laying into the western church as being lukewarm... with a self-test to check ones own lukewarmness. It's a very good, very inspirational read. My sisterfriend bought it for us jointly for Christmas, gave it to me to read first. :)
I seem to be getting chivvied into thinking about God's greatness and gloriousness. I envy you, with your farm. It's far too easy for me to spend days on end without seeing any proper nature at all... one of my New Year's resolutions is to spend more time at the beach. But... do you meditate on God Himself very often? How do you get there? I find it daunting and a bit scary, like standing at the top of a cliff wearing a hanglider for the very first time. I'm sure I'll be safe, but oh my!
Hugs, prayers...
Love,
hearth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)