The FOUR "R's"?

I heard a homeschooling advocate say in an interview recently that history was more important than math and language.  The interviewer's response was the same as mine, which was that it's not one of the three "R's".  He went on to make his case but it gave me reason to wonder.

In thinking about this I found that I could make the case that deficiencies in any of these four areas would result in various barriers to a more fulfilled life.  I decided that the "R" representing "reading" probably trumped history, because if a person can read he can teach himself the other three.  But there is another reason that we have the 3 "R's" and not the 4 R's... which I now think should include  "Retrospect".   (Hey, if Arithmetic can start with "r" then why not "retrospect" for history?)

Education's primary goal, it might be said, is to provide the opportunity for a more prosperous life.  If a person, at the very least, cannot read, write and do math, his prospects of being productive are weak.  He brings only his brawn to the marketplace.  But while the impact that ignorance of history makes on well-being is of more of a secondary nature, the consequences of such ignorance when it is more wide-spread can actually be more severe than ignorance of just reading, writing and math.

The reality of this is not as readily obvious for if only one person finds no reason or purpose to think outside his own time, society can easily absorb his ignorance into itself and the society, as well as the one, will probably be no worse off.

But when masses of people become ignorant of history the impact changes drastically.  A culture that is predominately ignorant of history lives in a time bubble devoid of the stabilizing influences it offers to the present.  History provides a culture with a reference point beyond its own time by which it can judge its own direction.  If a person knows history he can observe and discern the course of events according to that history.  He need not endure the trials and tribulations of his ancestors, or have a faulty view of the nature and proclivities of himself and his fellow man.  He is able to judge with clarity those who offer security in exchange for liberty.  But without a predominance of that knowledge, a culture becomes lost in time, and consequently, ripe for the oppressor's picking.

The prospects, therefore, of prosperity. that give us reason to apply ourselves to the 3 "R's" can all become nullified by our culture's whole-scale ignorance of history.  The Despot's restraints are first loosened by that ignorance, then broken.  And while the Despot lures the hapless citizen into deeper captivity with promises of a brighter future, the need and desire for that future grows ever more desperate as the cultural state of being declines.

This is of course why we homeschool our children.  The men who lust for power know that the opportunity to achieve that unfettered power lies in the classroom of the masses with the chief focal point being history.  They know that they must detach the child from the actual past and provide for him a past that is more conducive to the garnishment from them of power.  While our children may not escape the oppression of the tyrant, with a clear understanding of history, they won't have to fall prey to his wiles, and may possibly become a voice of reason in a dark and desperate culture.

The Prudish Homosexual

Sometimes the juxtaposition of words can shine a light on things. While it might easily be said, or perhaps even expected, that a disciple of  Christ would be a prude, somehow the idea of a prudish Homosexual has the feel of an oxymoron.  While we can and should admit, given the breadth of the dispositions of mankind, that there are instances of devoted and monogamous homosexual relationships, we also must realize that even in such cases the idea of a prudish homosexual falls short. ⁽¹⁾ There is a reason for this.  To discover that reason let's take a look at the definition of the word "Prude":

The online dictionary defines it this way:

"One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous. "

Considering this definition one word pops out at us right away: righteous.  This word is probably a good reason why the word prude is not considered to be a complement.   Le'ts take a closer look at that word, righteous as well to see why.  Merrian Webster defines it as "acting in accord with divine or moral law".

So we can see now why there is no such thing as a prudish homosexual.  The term prudish homosexual introduces cognitive dissonance.  Cognitive dissonance is like saying that it is forbidden to forbid, or, there is no truth... and that's the truth.  These statements are inconsistent with logic. In the same way, accusing a person who rejects the existence of absolute moral law of being excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous, is also inconsistent with logic.

Interestingly enough, the online dictionary goes on to say this:

"Being called a prude is rarely considered a compliment, but if we dig into the history of the word prude, we find that it has a noble past."

This "noble past" points to a time when it was generally accepted that there was such a thing as righteousness.  While the Christian perspective is that there are none righteous, no not one, this does not wipe away the existence of righteousness from which mankind falls short.  It remains that being a disciple of Christ, and thus being transformed into his righteous image, and being sanctified, ought to be the out-workings of that relationship.  The word prude, therefore, while causing us to be an object of contempt to the world, ought to give us reason for thankfulness in our hearts to God who has seen fit to transform us by the renewing our minds.
_________________

Note 1:  From the Christian perspective there is no such thing as a Homosexual Christian no more than there is such a thing as an adulterous Christian. Christians find their identity in Christ, not whatever garden variety of sin that happens to be "besetting" them.  "Homosexual Christian" does not describe, therefore, a Christian who struggles with same-sex attractions.  Such a Christian could easily be considered prudish, and given the shame all mankind inherently feels about his sinful behavior, Christians, above all, would not be desirous of waving as a banner, or claiming as an identity, their shame.

The Drawing To A Close Of The Information Revolution

Few realize it but a revolution of 60 years is showing signs of closure.  The re-election of Barack Obama was a signal that a victor in this revolution, brought about by the proliferation of the television set, is now beginning to emerge.  Since it is an un-named revolution, hidden perhaps within other simultaneous revolutions like the sexual revolution, I'll simply suffice to call it the Emotionian Revolution.

It's clear that information has always played a crucial role in struggles, whether armed or cultural.  But this revolution is different because it has been the very concept of information that appears to have been the objective behind the revolt.

Historically, as it involves information, strategies have centered on its control; bluffing opponents and deceiving enemies with false information, as well as propagandizing the populace to arouse passions against enemies, have all been effective uses of information.  The American founders understood this well and so enshrined the freedom of information into the Constitution as a defensive bulwark against those who would control information for their own gain. But the television set has changed all that.  The control of information has been rendered irrelevant because information itself has been rendered irrelevant.

A glimpse of the new battlefield upon which this revolution would take place occurred in 1960 during the first televised presidential debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. This debate, it so happened, occurred as the  TV set was becoming increasingly prevalent in the American home. These debates are noteworthy, therefore, not because of the ideas that were debated, but rather because of the impact the medium would have on the outcome of the election.  Nixon, it was said, looked old, pale, unshaven and sweaty while his opponent appeared young, tan and energetic.  That none of these qualities have any bearing on presidential qualifications is very much a foreign thought today.  That we would cringe at the thought of voting in a primary for a profusely ugly candidate is a testament to the revolution and its success.

The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, in contrast, remain noteworthy to this day for their ideological content.  They embody the battle of the mind and worldview of that day between contestants wielding weapons of ideas bolstered by information.  But this occurred during a time when people drew conclusions from ideas and experience.  But because of the advent of the television set, the Nixon/Kennedy debates would not be a battle of minds, but rather of images.  They would therefore forever change American and global politics.  Television would lull Western societies into a false sense of intellectual grandeur and glamor while at the same time actuality relieving them of reason and the toil of thinking.

The power of the moving image accompanied by emotion-arousing music, complete with caricatured, easy-to-hate strawmen, was not a new concept, to be sure. It was developed and used effectively during World War II.  But the migration of that arrangement from the scarcity of the big screen to daily ingestion by the family while congregating in the living room would prove to be an extremely powerful weapon that would bring about previously unforeseen or imagined changes.  Information, and then informed reasoning, would become a thing of the past for the collective society.  It would become a thing akin to a strategically ill-placed fort, bypassed and ignored by conquerors while its inhabitants fawned for logic-based intellectual battle.

The very concept of an informed citizen experienced a sort of reverse petrification process.  He would be transformed from an individual anchored by truth and reality into a caring, feeling and malleable citizen, one who hates and loves the correct ideas no matter how dissonant they may be. He wouldn't bother to consider the origins, reasonableness or consequences of his feelings, for to do so would require contemplation. Since these new feelings--not ideas--were installed by a medium that bypassed the cognitive filter of the mind, their installation went unnoticed.  As far as this modern new man was concerned, the mindset originated within himself.  Truth itself would be a casualty as these feelings, rather than an informed, principled and thoughtful position, would increasingly become the basis of a new kind of "truth".

The Nixon/Kennedy debates marked a beginning of the revolution by providing the discovery of a new means of conducting warfare through the image-driven campaign and the power of the TV.  It was quickly realized by some that with this new medium the political ground rules had drastically changed.  A projected image could now trump ideas. This fact ceded enormous amounts of power to television journalists and executives.  It was an opportunity that leftists immediately began to exploit.  But it wasn't by any means limited to just the news media.  All programming became a tool by which feelings-based values could be implanted.  The left was successful in populating every aspect of the medium with liberal ideology and ideologues.  Within 12 years, to even their own surprise I am convinced, they were able to take down a sitting president, all while successfully projecting an image of themselves as fair, objective, bystander journalists.

The media continued to consolidate this power and appeared to have been home free with their agenda when they met with their first counter-attack from the unlikeliest of corners, AM radio.  In August of 1988, Rush Limbaugh launched his syndicated radio show, the first of its kind.  A society in decline does not lack an awareness of its decline. They only lack an awareness of exactly how it's taking place.  The society is disoriented. 

Limbaugh's strength was his ability to say things that many people intrinsically knew but were unable to articulate. He was able to cut through the fog of liberalism. Within a few years, he would become a household name across America.  Not surprisingly he was immediately attacked from media strongholds.  Nevertheless, he was arguably instrumental in a major political upset for leftists in the Republican revolution of 1994.  With the mimicking of his success by like thinkers and communicators, AM radio would become a lone beacon of conservative dissent.  This conservative outpost would eventually pave the way for Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the White House.  Unfortunately, conservatism itself would be successfully blocked.

The left's failed attempt to mount a counter offense in AM radio is in its own right telling.  Talk radio, as it turned out, is a poor medium for manipulating emotions. It is a medium for the mind.  In response to radio's inroads, TV media, which had begun 24-hour cable news programming in 1980, dared to up the ante as it began to test the waters of shedding the pretense of objectivity.  Any boundaries that once existed against biased propaganda, they discovered, had long since vanished. They found themselves free to transition their "journalism" to an emotion-based, biased bullhorn.  The "news" media, for all practical purposes, was no more.  It had become a de facto state-run propaganda machine.  The lines between the Democrat party and other power players like the entertainment media, government unions, universities and public education had solidified into a nation-wide machine that would by comparison make New York's Boss Tweed operation look like a playground bully.

As this revolution draws to a close, AM radio, like the reason and logic based ideas it trumpets, is being reduced to a mere nuisance.  The emotions of voting for a man of the people, so vacuous of real content that anyone's Utopian hopes can easily fit inside his created image, has proven impervious to pertinent information.  The logic-based facts of America's very real financial predicament, for example, simply bounce off the walls of closed minds. No fiscal hole is so deep, it is evidently felt, that the pockets of the rich can't be raided to fill it. Interestingly enough, and also telling, is the fact that so many rich, who are the supposed causes of all that ails us, are on board with the soak-the-rich scheme.  That would give a thinking society reason for pause, but not this one.

The 2012 election was a milestone for several reasons, the most relevant of which was that President Obama did not attempt to hide, and in fact was refreshingly forthcoming with his revolutionary Marxist inclinations. He even removed the facade of his stance on marriage, a milestone in its own right. The conservative media had become prevalent enough so that the availability of information about his views and intentions were plentiful.  It wasn't a lack of unbiased news outlets that brought about his success, for it was not as if his positions were cognitively considered, and then embraced in the minds of his supporters.  And it wasn't like any views that opposed leftist views were refuted either. Such would have meant the thoughtful consideration of valid information, and then the ramifications of that information.  No, for the first time, a  growing number of the people based their choice on how they "felt" about the image of Barack Obama that was projected.  The sad reality of this election was that only a minority of his voters actually shared his revolutionary ideas.  But that minority, coupled with those who had projected their Utopian ideas onto an image, were enough to breach the last remaining barrier between a free nation and tyranny, that bulwark being the voting booth.  He was able to gain a majority of voters without hiding his true identity, and he did it in spite of numerous and disastrous scandals and decisions, any one of which would have had a Republican falling to an embarrassing defeat.

To be sure, this revolution was not about Barack Obama, nor was it about conservative versus liberal ideology.  The name and face of the man in this past election are irrelevant, as they will be in the next.  What is relevant and revolutionary is the ability of someone unseen to create an image with any smart looking and sounding face by the manipulation of emotions and feelings through entertainment, social and news mediums, while at the same time quelling critical thought in the majority of the voting population.  What had been the minority has now become the majority.  There is now a new frontier before us.  The only question is, where will the image manipulators take us now?

Lies From The Pit Of... Man?

This meme makes a truth claim.  It says that God hates the pain of divorce. Can I assume then that God only hates divorce when it causes pain, but He is otherwise OK with it if the feelings are mutual?  When we make claims about God like the one on this meme we ought to be very careful, for we are acting as prophets declaring a "truth" about God.  Any claims we make therefore should be able to rest on God's Word, and not on a conjured up image of a god that feels more acceptable.  So does the Bible agree with this claim?  Let's take a look:

"I hate divorce," says the Lord, the God of Israel,
(Mal 2:16)

There's no clarity lacking in that short statement is there?  There's nothing to be found about the pain of divorce here either, nor anywhere else in scripture.  But that's how Satan works.  He twists what God says.  It is a familiar tactic, indeed the one he used to bring down the human race:

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"  (Gen 3:1)

Notice Satan isn't sinister sounding here, or apparently not even repulsive.  He just twists God's words ever so slightly so that they say something God never said.  That's what this meme does too.  It is based on feelings and man-centered theology.   At the heart of it is the insinuation that man is basically good and his not being distraught (experience pain) is the goal of God's love.  This view is eternally disastrous and dangerous.  If man actually is deserving of God's love, then how do we reconcile that with what the Bible says is the eternal destiny of those who reject his Son?  Such a view does not grasp the reality of man's position as a sinner before a holy and righteous God.

The Bible says that all men stand condemned before God and are objects of His wrath, divorced or not.  But the Bible also presents us with Good News.  It says that we may hide in the righteousness of God's one and only Son and thereby escape His wrath.  The real question is not, does God love me in spite of my sin, but rather, have my sins been washed from God's sight by the blood of the Lamb?  As the old Hymn, written in a time before man-centered theology had become predominate, says:

"Just as I am without one plea,
but that thy blood was shed for me".  

The Fog Of Senselessness

Yesterday's addition to the growing roster of massacres will be viewed just as the previous massacres were viewed, which is in a vacuum.  It will be as if there were no indicators leading up to it that would have warned us that this sort of thing will be a new reality in our brave new world. It will have just happened, out of the blue, so to speak.

Sure, there are those who take advantage of these events to enact some new law, so it won't happen again of course. There will be reflexive demands for more gun controls.  And we will all be sad that twenty innocent children were murdered for no apparent reason.  But in the end it will simply be senselessness.  But that's just it.  Once a a society rejects God, everything becomes senseless.  Everyone will have a vague notion that things have gone horribly wrong, but few, unfortunately, will be able to identify why.

The reality, however, is that these events don't happen in a vacuum.  First, today, like yesterday and the day before, thousands of children will be murdered in this culture, with the culture's blessing.  The only sin of the victims of these murders will be that they are out of sight, and as such, out of mind.  More senselessness. I have often pondered what the response would be if 4000 children a day were lined up and shot because they were unwanted.  Given the response from yesterday's events, I'd say we'd be sickened; in fact I'd say that we'd risk our very lives to make it stop.  But we don't, and they won't.  They are out of sight.

Second, the very school where this tragedy took place is no different from the previous ones.  They all teach that there is no ultimate and objective good and evil.  They all teach that everyone of us came from nothing, and are the result of nothing, and have a destiny of nothing. Life, we are taught from our earliest years, has no meaning.  The school must teach it.  It is the law.  If there were ultimate laws, you see, that would imply that there is an ultimate law-giver.  And if there is an ultimate lawgiver, there is one to which we will all give an account.  And such as that will simply not do.

Third, these schools teach materialism.  They are materialistic because they are designed by secular materialists sent by the populace to do just that.  As such, education is worshiped as the sole means to the best materialistic life that can be achieved. It is a high place... an idol. The idea that anything is higher than one's own life or material achievement is wholly alien to the properly trained child.  Gone are any transcendent realities or altruism, or worse yet, any fear of God that would give good reason for one to reign over himself and his passions.

When a society teaches itself that life is ultimately meaningless, then it ought not be surprised when some in its ranks take that teaching to heart.  It is in that heart, understand, where the ultimate problem resides.  Attempt to conform the outside with your millions of laws and regulation all you want, but it will be the heart, darkened or otherwise, that will dictate a man's path.

Given that many of those darkened hearts who exercise their passions simply take their own lives in the process, just how are the attempts to reign them in by legislation to be applied anyway?  They can't be.  They can't be because the problem is not a legal problem but a heart problem.  The problem is the rejection of God.  Having put God away, concepts such as objective truth and sin have receded into the fog of senselessness.  They're no longer seen or noticed.  But they do rear their ugly heads still, as from out of nowhere... as if out of the fog. They harass us... like a hand extending from the fog to slap us from our drunken stupor.

God Loves Everyone So Do As Thou Wilt

Following is a discussion I had with two Christians on Facebook.  I think it highlights the end to which our current approach to theology inevitably leads, that theology being: (a) that God loves everyone unconditionally, (b) That what the world doesn't realize, and needs to be told, is that Jesus loves them, (c) That God hates the sin but loves the sinner.  

Missing in this theology... (well maybe it doesn't qualify really as theology but probably more as pop-theology, or perhaps an approach to reaching out to the world) is any suggestion of God's holiness or his wrath. It is a contorted theology in which the Christian becomes ashamed of the wrath of his God.  While pop theology doesn't necessarily reject God's wrath, or eternal damnation in Hell fires, they simply become the big pink elephant in the Bible.

In this discussion both of these guys hold "judging" as the offense of offenses.  Both hold to relativism, one takes a hard view, the other a softer view.  The personal view trumps everything.  What is absent in both views is a sense of not being loved and accepted by God.

So, here is the discussion.  I've removed the names and replaced them with with Bob and John.  It took place in a short time so please excuse the typos on everyone's part.

_______________

Dan-Where do you get Jesus accepts everybody?

Dan-What I mean is, where does it say that in the Bible Bob?

Bob- well doesn't Jesus love everyone?

Dan-Are yo asking me? What does my opinion matter? What does the Bible say Bob?

Bob - one of our commandments say "love thy neighbors" am I right or wrong?

Dan-what if your neighbor is an unborn child Bob?

John - I personally am very against abortion, I believe it is murder and even unborn children should be loved. However, Jesus does not view anybody with different views as lesser people.

John - I believe he does, but he loves and cares for their parents too.

Dan -  Does Jesus love unborn babies?

John - And people who disagree as well

Dan - What does loving the parents too have to do with anything?

Bob -  This is where I disagree with a lot of stuff. I believe that my god is a merciful and forgiving god and that is not judgmental. Yes, Jesus does cares for unborn child its a gift from god.

Dan -  And yet you vote for one who advocates their slaughter?

John  Abortion. Even if the parents get an abortion he loves them just the same. I didn't vote for Obama, but that doesn't make me right.

Dan -  Who you voted for has no bearing on what is right or wrong. I'm simply trying to reconcile the murder of innocent human beings and your professed beliefs.

Dan -  God is merciful, yes. But does that make it OK to crush and dismember the unborn?

John  I DO NOT agree with abortion, and I would never get one. Not even if I was raped. But I don't want to say other's beliefs are wrong when I expect them to be open minded about mine. It's a 2 way street.

Bob - See this is where the problem is. Those our president advocates for it doesn't mean he is the one dragging people to the hospital to get an abortion. its an individual choice on that person. who are we to say NO!! her judgement should be between her and God not US!!!!

Dan - So you would be OK with me killing my 1 year old son?

Dan -  After all, God is merciful right? And it would be open minded, right?

Bob - That's up to you and God. I won't say it's okay but due it it your choice and you will face the consequence judgment day.

John - This is why I'm against abortion Danny. I do truly believe it is the same thing to kill a one year old and an unborn child. Bob doesn't, but her beliefs are hers and I don't want to tell her how wrong she is when she's never told me that. We all just need to be respectful of what others think.

Dan -  So John, what you are saying is that there is no absolute truth.

Dan -  Right?

Dan -  So if I tortured, raped and then killed my 1 year old, while you don't agree with it, you have no right to tell me its wrong?

Dan -  Then God would judge me, but I'm still ok because Jesus died for ALL people. right?

Bob -  I have a right to tell you your wrong. but i can't STOP you from doing it!

John - Not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply saying if you want people to listen to your side you have to listen to their's. I believe it is an absolute truth, and it is part of the reason I did not vote for Obama. But I still think we should be respectful and listen to Bob.

John -  And If you believe Jesus is your savior and accept him as such then yes, you're still fine.

John -  Jesus never stops giving second chances.

Dan -  John,  how have I been disrespectful?

Dan -  Disagreement is not disrespect, though it may feel like it at times.

John - You haven't. I'm sorry, it did seem like I meant that. That's not how I intended that to come across at all. You've been very respectful. I think a better word for what I meant was open-minded.

Dan -  I believe I am open minded John. But that's another discussion and I don't want to get distracted. I'll get back to that in a moment if you wish.

So, what you are saying is that I can torture etc, my child and its OK if I accepted Jesus? Is that what you're saying?

Dan -  Just trying to clarify, not wanting to put words in your mouth.

John -  If you believe you're open-minded you probably are. And technically yes. Jesus died to forgive all of our sins, all of the things he declared wrong. That would be one of them and technically you could get away with it. Still, he gave up his life on the cross so why would you want to do that. Wouldn't you want to try and do what he wanted as a way of thanking him?

John - Jesus never said ANYWHERE that murder was worse than lying. A sin is a sin, harmless or not. Who are we to decide what's worse in Jesus' eyes. When we sin we all suffer death, but Jesus died so that we may have the chance to live with him in heaven.

Dan -  I'm not seeing where anyone is advocating lying. I am seeing where Christians are saying that murdering the unborn OK>

John -  Lying was just a comparison. To us a lie seems way more acceptable than murder, but Jesus didn't ever say that to be true. And Danny, I agree with you on abortion, but I'm with Bob. I've got a lot of work to do. I respect your opinions and I hope you respect mine as well.

Friend of mine - And where does Jesus say to keep on sinning after you accept Him?! He says to turn from your wicked ways and repent. He says in Matthew 18:15-17 that if you see your brother sinning to GO TO HIM, even eventually brining him before the church. He never ...See More

John - It is entirely impossible to quit sinning. Realize it or not we sin everyday. We look at somebody and make a judgement, that's a sin. We may not even mean to, but it happens.

John - Anyway, I can't keep debating, I really do have a lot of homework this week. Ciao.

What Has The Church To Do With Capitalism

What does Christianity have to do with capitalism? The short answer is, not much, really; at least not directly. You see economics is, simply put, the allocation of scarce material resources. The Christian would do well to remember that Christianity not only thrives today in all sorts of harsh economic systems, but it has done so throughout history. In fact the argument could be made that it has thrived more hardily under oppressive systems, especially if we accept the fact that the Church, in its purest form, is interested much more in men's eternal destinies than in any carnal-minded concepts such as the fair distributions of material resources. 

The Christian therefore must beware of those who fix their eyes on worldly "material" as, not only their source of joy and purpose, but also a suitable solution for all that ails society. The basis of communism was born out of this very perspective. Marx rejected God.  He then set out to make things “fair” for those he saw as the down-trodden masses. But he could only evaluate their condition on the basis of materialism.  That a child with lots of toys and a full stomach might not be as well off as one with barely anything except two loving parents is lost on a materialist like Marx. 

As it turned out, man's attempts to bring about the Utopian system Marx envisioned succeeded only in bathing the 20th century in blood. Yet Utopia never arrived, only deeper levels of hell and fear for those under its oppressive fist ... oh, and lots of disparity in wealth distribution too. In fact, history, as well as Jesus, tells us that wealth disparity is part and parcel to Man's existence. Man's attempts to "fix" that problem only end up changing who gets more than "their fair share".  

From the Christian perspective -- that is, from the perspective that takes into account eternity -- it is the hopelessness during this life that causes the Church to thrive. In the free market system, you see, no matter what the material circumstances of one's birth, there is hope of improving those circumstances materially. This hope can present strong competition for our interests and affections, and so therefore are a formidable distraction from a future eternal hope after death. The irony should not be missed that the system dreamed up by Karl Marx, who proclaimed that religion was the opiate of the masses, caused those who discovered Jesus in the midst of his hell to thrive, albeit not materially.

There's no doubt that capitalism eases the pain of our existence through higher standards of living. It also causes disparate wealth distribution, which grates horribly on man's sin nature, his covetous inclinations and his sense of "fairness".  In his affluence he will inevitable be drawn to what he feels is a "fairer" distribution of the world's resources because those resources begin to usurp eternal ideas and a spiritual understanding of our world.

Affluence also wreaks havoc on our Christian walk. Acceptance and accommodation of evil becomes normal as worldly wealth finds itself in competition with our life in Christ. Our beliefs begin to die the death of a thousand compromises as our thinking increasingly conforms to this world. In the process we become less and less distinguishable from the world until one day we wake to find that our “Christian” bedfellows are not Christians at all, but rather Marxists dressed in sheep's clothing.  We learn that these wolves have co-opted the Christian banner for anti-Christ causes based on social justice, which is just another way of saying "material justice".

Worse yet, affluence begins to inculcate the "religion" of Christianity with a confusion between material wealth and the abundant life in Christ. Because of this confusion terms like "thrive" when used to describe the oppressed and poor's life in Christ is difficult to grasp. It is not mere coincidence then that the very term "abundant life" in John chapter 10 is found in the context of pointing out the existence of hireling shepherds -- shepherds who are there for the material outcome and not for the eternal good of the sheep.

Yet capitalism and Christianity do have a relationship. It finds this relationship in a shared core principle concerning man's condition. Capitalism is based on the premise that Man is not basically good. The so-called father of capitalism, Adam Smith, illustrates this in his treatise The Wealth Of Nations:

A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. ... [M]an has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages".

By adopting Smith’s prescription the founding fathers aligned our economic system with reality by the assumption that man would be much more productive, innovative and industrious if doing so would be beneficial to himself. Thus was born what would become one of the freest and wealthiest societies ever enjoyed by Man.

The ideas that formed American capitalism however were not instituted in a vacuum but in the bosom of a predominately Christian culture. In such a culture in which the individual held himself eternally liable before a Holy and Righteous God, the people were more inclined to exercise self-governance and restraint according to an objective moral standard. These standards then guided their decisions, not only as they pertained to their own lives and interactions with resources, but also as they pertained to every sphere of their influence including the selection of leaders. This predominate mindset of the populace, which was subjugated to a higher order, made for fertile soil for capitalism's seed to flourish. However, as it turns out, equal opportunity and economic freedom naturally produce unequal ends. Some got very wealthy while others struggled.  In a a society with a sense of moral bearings this is generally attributed to providence and so does not present a problem.  But such disparity it is not suffered well in a society that is not only disparaging of honor, but is also burdened by a perverse sense of entitlement, envy and covetousness ... and which has no suspicion of those seeking power through promises of a Utopian society.

Central to the health of capitalism, therefore, is the Church's teaching on the truths regarding man's sinful condition. Never mind, for the moment, that this teaching is key to understanding the Gospel, and as such, key to the health of the Church and its Kingdom mandate, for I am attempting here to answer an economic question. The fact remains that the modern Western "Church" has become either unable or loath to make man’s depravity a focal part of her doctrine. This transformation of focus in central doctrines taught by the Church has had a destructive effect on capitalism for a couple of reasons.

First, capitalism is dependent on the Biblical concept of fidelity. As I pointed out earlier, capitalism produces a few fabulously-well-to-do individuals. But it is just as important that it also produces comfortable masses with relatively modest excesses in resources. Fidelity allows for the masses to pool their resources to create an almost unfathomable concentration of wealth.  This wealth then plays an important role in the economy. For one, it doesn't lie dormant, hidden in post holes and mattresses, but rather it becomes productive through investment. Also, its productivity produces a return which not only fuels the economy but also helps to sustain people when they become too old to work. Though this principle was in place long before tax deferment laws were enacted, they are apparent in current 401-k programs.

It is these massive concentrations of wealth that have been responsible for many advancements through research that would have otherwise been unachievable due to insurmountable expenses. Such advancements include the development of drugs and medical procedures,  the willing slave of affordable energy and advances in just about all technologies. But the same wealth also awakens the greed and envy resident in the heart of man.

If there is no objective truth by which to judge all things, then we are left with a syllogism that looks kind of like this:

1. Men are good

2. I am man.

3. What I do is good.

With this view man can rationalize the greed in his own heart while, incidentally, retaining his right to judge the greed in others. The system breaks down as the wealthy are judged as greedy simply because they were successful at accomplishing what those who judge them could not. In addition to this the wealthy begin to judge each other also. You have millionaire politicians judging millionaire businessmen, and millionaire businessmen judging millionaire politicians. In addition, you have millionaire Hollywood stars, who seem to somehow be above judgment, judging them all. All of this judging of the greed of others, while justifying the greed in one's own heart, is therefore not confronted from within with any sense of providence, honor, or accurate understanding of the true condition of the heart of man; much less the economic system within which it is all taking place.

In such a fidelity-starved environment the idea of pooling one's wealth becomes a fool's errand as increasing numbers feel justified in their own actions. Contracts are broken, loans are forsaken, capital is siphoned off by currency printing, onerous regulations, corruption, ponzi schemes, fraud, theft, bribes  and so on. Worse, many who justify their own participation in these destructive actions have their own meager resources invested in the system their actions are destroying. This is like a snake greedily biting his own tail for spite of the tail's head. Those with modest means will eventually have no option but to withdraw what remains, convert them to an historically stable currency such as scarce metals.  This is one reason a rise in the price of gold can be a negative indicator of the health of an economy. As resources are withdrawn there is a corresponding reduction in new resources which results in a domino effect toward a reduced standard of living for the masses.

Second, capitalism is dependent on the Biblical concept of work. Since man's banishment from Eden he has worked tirelessly to reenter. One way man can go about this is to make his way in life off the sweat of his neighbor's brow. The capitalistic system is a system that is dependent on the pooled resources gained by the sweat of one's own brow. The necessary relationship between work and provision has been thwarted in the past by the outright enslavement of man by his fellow man. Contrary to popular belief, this act hasn't ended, the methods have only changed. Now rather than enslaving a few men and making an ugly spectacle, masses are partially enslaved for the benefit of a few through what has become euphemistically known as wealth redistribution.

Liberty, and it's cousin capitalism, are not hardy social or economic systems. They can exist only in environments in which those who hold to the ideas on which they stand cling tenaciously to objective reality. Once man's true condition is rejected by the society at large, that society no longer accepts reality but rather an alternate reality based more on how man thinks things ought to be than how they actually are. This then releases man to embrace the folly that some men can be trusted to siphon wealth from his neighbor and redistribute it more fairly to another neighbor.  Such a relationship is akin to the notion of honor among thieves as the citizen charges the politician to steal while trusting that the same politician will be dealing honestly with himself.  He is blinded by the spectacle of a looming Utopia just beyond the horizon.  The healthy suspicions that once met those who promised such a Utopian society ^{1, 2, 3} become suppressed and maligned. Instead schemes are invented that are designed to exchange votes and campaign donations for largess. We saw a battle along these lines recently in Wisconsin as out-of-control state liabilities consisting of promised largess to government union members threatened the state’s fiscal health as larger numbers of people were becoming unproductive by living off the confiscated wealth of their neighbors.  This is a spiral as ever more amounts of siphoned resources are required to cover the cost of paying people to do nothing. But these siphoned resources are not coming from nothing, they are confiscated from those who earned it. This is like the snake eating the tail that it bit off of himself, assuming that it will provide him with long term nourishment. It is counter to capitalism, it is counter to a Biblical view of the world, and in a more sane society it would be counter to common sense.

So, in conclusion, what has the Church to do with capitalism? In a word: “nothing”. In summing up the answer however we would do well to rearrange the question and ask, rather, "What has capitalism to do with the Church?” And like every other question that man asks along these lines, the answer is "everything". Many who worship at the altar of capitalism have not asked this question and their beloved system is now in danger as a result ... and they provide a thousand reasons why ... and it continues to crumble. Ditto for family, marriages, joy, happiness, and every other thing that man endeavors to do without God in his few short hours in this life.

 ________


¹ In Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville had this to say in the 1830's concerning America's constitution:

The Constitution of the United States is like those exquisite productions of human industry which ensure wealth and renown to their inventors, but which are profitless in any other hands. This truth is exemplified by the condition of Mexico at the present time, The Mexicans were desirous of establishing a federal system, and they took the Federal Constitution of their neighbors, the Anglo-American, as their model, and copied it with considerable accuracy! But although they had borrowed the letter of the law, they were unable to create or to introduce the spirit and the sense which give it life. They were involved in ceaseless embarrassments between the mechanism of their double government; the sovereignty of the States and that of the Union perpetually exceeded their respective privileges, and entered into collision; and to the present day Mexico is alternately the victim of anarchy and the slave of military despotism. (page 189)

²John Adams: "Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government."

³F. A Hayek in "The Road To Serfdom" (written during WWII) had an interesting comment in the introduction of his book on page 57 (in my copy) that I think applies here as well:

... [H]istory never quite repeats itself, and just because no development is inevitable, we can in measure learn from the past to avoid repetition of the same process. One need not be a prophet to be aware of impending dangers. 'And accidental combination of experience and interest will often reveal events to one man under aspects which few yet see. The following pages are the product of an experience as near as possible to twice living though the same period... While this is an experience one is not likely to gain in one country, it may in certain circumstances be acquired by living in turn for long periods in different countries. ...Thus, by moving from one country to another, one may sometimes twice watch similar phases of intellectual development. The senses have then become peculiarly acute. When one hears for a second time opinions expressed or measures advocated which one has first met twenty or twenty-five years ago they assume a new meaning as symptoms of a definite trend. It is necessary now to state the unpalatable truth that it is Germany whose fate we are in some danger of repeating... It is not to the Germany of Hitler; the Germany of the present war, that England and the United states bear yet any resemblance, But students of the currents of ideas can hardly fail to see that there is more than a superficial similarity between the trend of thought in Germany during and after the last war and the present current of ideas in the democracies.

So Now What?

My children asked me the question a month or so ago, "what if Obama wins?"  I told them that nothing would change.  The next day we would all get up and have a cup of coffee.  People would go to their jobs like always and you guys would have school.

But then one day you'll drive by a shopping center, and you'll say to yourself, "I remember when we used to go shopping there.  Now it's boarded up."  One day you'll happen to notice we haven't eaten out in a long time.  It might occur to you one day that our neighborhood just seems much more blighted and the houses more in disrepair; and that there's graffiti much more common as the people stop bothering to cover it up.

I told them that our economy may collapse under the weight of debt anyway, but that if the current direction were stayed, it's collapse would be much more certain and sooner.  You will first see things start to cost a lot more as the government prints money in order to keep itself empowered.  But eventually the money will no longer buy sufficient food and that will be when things get really bad.  Violence will fill our streets and martial law will have to be declared so that people can work and survive. People will die.  America will probably go on.  But it won't be the America that was.  It will be a new America, an America hostile to those of us who remember and long for the old one.

So what has happened?  We have been drifting for years.  The sixties marked a stark turning point as every boundary was tested.  They crumbled.  Four years ago we entered the culmination of the sixties era upheaval.  Yesterday that reality was affirmed by a majority of Americans, most of which see the historic economic cycles of late as a trustworthy indication of what we can expect in the future.  The economy will recover, they think, simply because it always has.  Those people are blind to the root nature of our predicament. While no economy is so far gone that it can't recover in a moral society, no economy is so robust that it can survive an immoral society.  It's simple really.  No society can sustain the damage to the family and foundations that this society has, and then have things continue as if none of it mattered.

So, now what?  First I personally plan on cleaning house.  There has been a nagging in my heart that I've been placing way to much of my focus on the wrong things.  I plan on spending some time evaluating those things in light of their interference with my worship and adoration of Jesus.  I am confident that I have let idols creep in.  They must go, and I must seek the face of my God.

Second, I plan on beginning work on my heart as it pertains to enduring suffering and watching my family endure it.  I so want to walk through this time in a way that honors God.  That will take some work.  We Americans have never had to deal with these sorts of things before.  I feel fairly certain we will be doing so in the coming years.

Third, I will make some effort to be ready for anarchy.  I'm not talking about hoarding a years worth of food and bullets here.  But I am talking about being able to feed my family, and my neighbors if they need it, for a time.  I will also create a plan so that if we need to leave quickly, perhaps we will be able to.  I'm fairly certain that we have at least a year, probably two, and if we're very very fortunate, never, before our society unravels to the point I envision.

The question I keep asking myself though is this one, can a society do what we are now, and have been doing, and simply expect things go well?  Do we have an indefinite number of administrations that we can elect until someone comes along that can make things normal again?  My answer is always the same.  No, I'm afraid not.

On Politics, Part II, "I Don't Like Either Candidate"

The way I see it there are three types of I-don't-like-either-candidate voters.

The Slouch- This person simply  lacks interest and has not taken the time to be informed.  What he does know is based on what the candidate looks like, campaign ads, friends and so on.  This person can be characterized by his discomfort or dislike of discussing politics for fear of his ignorance being revealed.  I would say that this constitutes almost all "independents" and explains why the same state can elect a president that wants to go in one direction and a senator that wants to go the opposite direction.  Oh yes, they then complain about the "partisan divide".

The Utopian - This person views the world through a lens of perfection.  While being sufficiently informed about what the two candidates stand for, this person rejects both because neither comes close enough to his idea of perfection.  This person's understanding of politics reflects the vision he hopes to achieve through an election in that both his vision and his candidate can be defined as narrow.  His candidate will never win a primary because the candidate must appeal to a group with little to no tolerance for those who see the world differently.  The election process for them, after their guy looses the primary, is to trash the winner in order to create a platform to vent their frustration about reality.   Their numbers include people from both the right and left.  I would say however that most are from the right because, in my opinion,  the right contains greater numbers of informed and principled people.  I base this opinion on the fact that the left extracts most of its appeal and power by the promise of redistributed (read free) wealth; which means all anyone really need be informed about is who is promising more free stuff.  This is a question easily answered by party affiliation.   

The Principled - This person rejects both candidates on principle.  He sees himself as not being able to cast a vote for any person who does not meet a minimum level of morality... come what may.  This type understands the ramifications of not voting.  He understands that there will always be a "better" candidate that will serve any given person better than the other, and therefore will be a better candidate for his own sake.  But he shuns the perceived advantage and rejects both anyway.  This person differs from the "Utopian" in that he understands the political realities within which he exists.  He has a high tolerance for differing opinions because he realizes that his vision is meaningless unless it can be converted to meaningful reform by winning elections.  That tolerance has its limits however, and the limits are exceeded when neither candidate can stand or appeal to the same or similar principles. 

On Politics, Part I, The Reality Of Politics

This series of posts is in response to Facebook and personal discussions I've seen and have been involved in.  In short, I hear things that simply do not make any sense.  Please note that I write this, not from a perspective of having all the answers but rather that the answers are more simple than they may seem once the fog of emotion clears and the clarity of reality emerges.

In a discussion once a friend told me the reason that he left his previous church was because it was too political. (Political as in church politics.) Now it might well have been to political, but when I hear something like this I generally assume there is more to it than I'm getting, or even than the person telling me is aware of.

The truth is that politics are very much a part of life.  We all engage in them daily though we do so unaware.   When you and a friend go out to dinner you both discuss and agree on a place and a time to go.  There is give and take on both sides because it is your goal is to have dinner together.  You can't, then, very well go to different places or at different times. You have a common goal.  This is politics in its simplest form.  Sure, it's easy because you both desire the other's company.  But no matter if it is the politics of a complex society like this upcoming election or deciding on dinner, the process is the same.

Yes, it is the same, but it's not always warm and friendly or agreeable; and as such not always easy.  Suppose you were handcuffed to your friend... Who am I kidding. If he was your friend when you were handcuffed, he wouldn't be for long. We all know that.   This would bring about drastic changes.  Still, one thing in the end would be true: where the one went the other would go also. 

This is one reason I am leery of the "I don't like either candidate" response to a question.  It is not like the outcome is not going to impact the person that says this.  They're going with the majority like it or not.  Their choices are clear, even if neither choice is good.

Next time I will discuss a legitimate "I don't like either candidate" position.