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.
Monday, January 26, 2009
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)