An interesting video: money doesn't motivate people to be productive. People are motivated to be productive when they can master challenges and make a contribution.
28 July 2010
15 July 2010
If you can't abuse a child, ordain a woman instead
In another one of those instances where evil triumphs if good people say nothing, the Vatican appears to have shot itself in the foot today by pronouncing that the ordination of women is a grave sin.
And how did the Vatican do this? In what document did they choose to make this important pronouncement? Why, in a document written to deal with the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy. Guardian Article here.
Apparently, on some Planet Ratzinger in a universe of parallel morality far far away, violating the stricture of Church tradition and ordaining women is equal in immorality to sexual abuse of a child. Wow, if that's the case then we really had better get cracking and make sure that we pounce on feminist theologians. We wouldn't them influencing anyone to think that women can usurp the priestly duties and stand as an intermediary between god and Man (capitalizations deliberate).
This has got to be one of the most egregious violations of common sense, decency and natural justice.
I really hate to appear to be some kind of Protestant who makes knee-jerk attacks on the Catholic Church for no good reason. Half of my family is Catholic and I studied theology at a Catholic university.
But sometimes you just have to stand up for what is right. I've heretofore refrained from speaking about the ordination of women in the Catholic Church because I felt that it wasn't my place. Now the Vatican is comparing the ordination of women to the sexual abuse of children. The Vatican has lost the plot although I'm confident that many millions of faithful Catholics have not.
This pronouncement is morally bankrupt.
And how did the Vatican do this? In what document did they choose to make this important pronouncement? Why, in a document written to deal with the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy. Guardian Article here.
Apparently, on some Planet Ratzinger in a universe of parallel morality far far away, violating the stricture of Church tradition and ordaining women is equal in immorality to sexual abuse of a child. Wow, if that's the case then we really had better get cracking and make sure that we pounce on feminist theologians. We wouldn't them influencing anyone to think that women can usurp the priestly duties and stand as an intermediary between god and Man (capitalizations deliberate).
This has got to be one of the most egregious violations of common sense, decency and natural justice.
I really hate to appear to be some kind of Protestant who makes knee-jerk attacks on the Catholic Church for no good reason. Half of my family is Catholic and I studied theology at a Catholic university.
But sometimes you just have to stand up for what is right. I've heretofore refrained from speaking about the ordination of women in the Catholic Church because I felt that it wasn't my place. Now the Vatican is comparing the ordination of women to the sexual abuse of children. The Vatican has lost the plot although I'm confident that many millions of faithful Catholics have not.
This pronouncement is morally bankrupt.
12 July 2010
Deadbeats
Here is an article from our local newspaper that narrates the stories of all the deadbeats in Northeastern Ohio who could perfectly well work if they weren't so lazy and didn't enjoy sitting around at home and doing nothing while taking the money of good, honest taxpayers.
Rolls of Needy Swell
For those who don't know me, I assure you that I am being facetious.
There is a recession on, people. There but for the grace of God go you and I. Pretending that "my" get-up-and-go in contrast to "their" laziness will keep me in a job is just a form of magical thinking.
Rolls of Needy Swell
For those who don't know me, I assure you that I am being facetious.
There is a recession on, people. There but for the grace of God go you and I. Pretending that "my" get-up-and-go in contrast to "their" laziness will keep me in a job is just a form of magical thinking.
11 July 2010
Broken Covenant? Not.
Would someone please explain to me how the following statement by the Revd. Nicola Jones at the Portsmouth Methodist Conference can be construed as expressing the view that "that the State of Israel by its 'oppressive actions' has broken the Jews' covenant with God"?
===
===
This report is about Christians listening to the cry from our Christian sisters and brothers. They cry out to us to help Israel and its occupation. The end of the occupation is the key to peace in this troubled land of The Holy One as is the renouncing of violence by all. All the peoples yearn for security but security only follows from justice, not the other way around. And justice is the prophetic priority for all God’s people, as students of the bible know well.
In the bible we learn of The Chosen People. Who are they and what are they chosen for? Genesis tells us again and again that God choose Abraham and makes a covenant with Abraham and his heirs. A covenant being a two-sided agreement with obligations on both parties, like marriage. God’s covenant with the Children of Israel, Abraham’s heirs, is that he will be their God and they will be his people if they walk humbly before God, obey God’s laws and are a light to the nations.
Of course, Israel today is not the same as Israel in the bible. In the bible, Israel refers to the people of Abraham’s descendants who are in covenant with God. Israel today is a modern, secular State, created in 1948. Where, if you live in the West Bank: Bethlehem, Hebron, Ramallah, there is no freedom of travel, no freedom to leave the country and return, no freedom to plant your olive trees or tend your land, no freedom to marry and live together where you choose.
Last Sunday marked the anniversary of my ordination into The Methodist Church. It was 26 years ago (I was very young at the time!). For years I cherished the Galatians text: “In Christ there is no longer male or female.” Now I read it properly: “In Christ there is no longer male or female, slave or free, Jew or Greek – we could say ‘Jew or Arab’ – we are all one in Christ. We are heirs of Abraham and so inheritors of the promise to Abraham.”
Jesus, who makes with us a New Covenant which transforms us utterly, never speaks of the land or owning it; he speaks of the Kingdom and joining it and invites us to do so. He teaches us God is not a racist God who has favourites. God loves all his children and blesses them.
“What is it God requires of you?” asks Micah today. “To do justice, to show mercy, walk humbly with God.” So we look for the day when that is true for all of Abraham’s children – Christian, Muslim and Jew – that they can live together freely and know God’s justice and peace.
02 July 2010
A Thought on Immigration
Just a thought inspired from a snippet I read this morning. It's "interesting" how people get worried about immigration and "all those people coming into our country to take jobs away from us."
My husband is a UK citizen with a British accent living in the US. For 21 years, I was a US citizen with an American accent living in the UK.
Maybe people were too polite to say so, but no one ever complained to me that I was taking a job away from a native-born British citizen. Quite the opposite. A number of times, people complained to me at length about immigrants and then when I'd point out that I was an immigrant they said "Oh, but I don't mean you!"
In the same way, no one has yet challenged my husband about his immigration status to the US. OK, it's relatively early days, but I bet they don't mean him - that nice white man with a British accent - when they are worried about all those people coming over here and taking our jobs.
However, the ironic thing is that we were and are the people who are coming over here and taking away jobs from the native born. We are not doing the hard-grafting work that most immigrants do because native born sons and daughters don't want to do such hard work.
I'm pretty sure that it helps being white.
My husband is a UK citizen with a British accent living in the US. For 21 years, I was a US citizen with an American accent living in the UK.
Maybe people were too polite to say so, but no one ever complained to me that I was taking a job away from a native-born British citizen. Quite the opposite. A number of times, people complained to me at length about immigrants and then when I'd point out that I was an immigrant they said "Oh, but I don't mean you!"
In the same way, no one has yet challenged my husband about his immigration status to the US. OK, it's relatively early days, but I bet they don't mean him - that nice white man with a British accent - when they are worried about all those people coming over here and taking our jobs.
However, the ironic thing is that we were and are the people who are coming over here and taking away jobs from the native born. We are not doing the hard-grafting work that most immigrants do because native born sons and daughters don't want to do such hard work.
I'm pretty sure that it helps being white.
31 May 2010
Sunday 30 May 2010 - The Servant King
I was asked to supply-preach this morning on the general subject of "Memorial Day". I chose to use the assigned Epistle reading from the lectionary, Romans 5:1-11 but I departed from the lectionary for the Gospel reading and chose the story of Jesus washing the disciples' feet from John: John 13:1-9
The sermon can be found on my sermon blog.
The sermon can be found on my sermon blog.
19 May 2010
Non-Profit Panera
I thought this article in today's edition of USA Today was very interesting: Non-Profit Panera Cafe: Take what you need, pay what you can.
It would be interesting to see how this eventually works out.
Very briefly, the former CEO of Panera Cafe, Ron Shaich, "has converted a former Panera-owned restaurant in an urban area of St. Louis into a non-profit restaurant dubbed Saint Louis Bread Company Cares Cafe." The cafe serves the same menu as a standard Panera Bread Cafe but instead of facing a cash register at check-out, patrons face a donation box where they can leave the suggested price for their meal, leave more or eat without paying.
This past Sunday was the first Sunday that the free-will cafe was opened and revenues were up 20% over the previous week.
I hope that USA Today keeps us informed of what happens.
It would be interesting to see how this eventually works out.
Very briefly, the former CEO of Panera Cafe, Ron Shaich, "has converted a former Panera-owned restaurant in an urban area of St. Louis into a non-profit restaurant dubbed Saint Louis Bread Company Cares Cafe." The cafe serves the same menu as a standard Panera Bread Cafe but instead of facing a cash register at check-out, patrons face a donation box where they can leave the suggested price for their meal, leave more or eat without paying.
This past Sunday was the first Sunday that the free-will cafe was opened and revenues were up 20% over the previous week.
I hope that USA Today keeps us informed of what happens.
17 May 2010
Heck is for People Who Don't Believe in Gosh
My cyber-friend, Allan Bevere has been kind enough to sponsor a post by me on the subject of heaven and hell, what it means to be a Christian, and what our eternal hope is.
I asked him to do this because it arose out of another discussion on his blog. Also, his blog gets a higher readership and discussion rate than this blog, so I'm hoping that there will be a good discussion. In the event that you read my blog and not Allan's, please go over and comment on the post: Heck is for People Who Don't Believe in Gosh.
If it tempts you over, let me say that I don't believe that going to heaven and avoiding hell is a foundational Christian doctrine. I also don't believe that "going to heaven" is our hope for eternal life although I do believe that "being resurrected into the New Creation" is.
I asked him to do this because it arose out of another discussion on his blog. Also, his blog gets a higher readership and discussion rate than this blog, so I'm hoping that there will be a good discussion. In the event that you read my blog and not Allan's, please go over and comment on the post: Heck is for People Who Don't Believe in Gosh.
If it tempts you over, let me say that I don't believe that going to heaven and avoiding hell is a foundational Christian doctrine. I also don't believe that "going to heaven" is our hope for eternal life although I do believe that "being resurrected into the New Creation" is.
13 May 2010
Women of the Kingdom
I was raised in a very conservative Protestant Christian tradition. A tradition that has a very high regard for the study of theology but which also views the bible as verbally inspired, inerrant and infallible in all matters, including matters of history and science. You'd probably not be surprised to learn that this tradition does not countenance the ordination of women on the ground Scripture teaches that men have headship over women and may therefore not be taught or led by women.
One of the joys and delights of being a Methodist is that women achieved full equality in the Church some decades ago. The US Methodist Church gave full clergy rights to women in 1956 (although some prior historic Methodist denominations had ordained women in the 19th century) and I believe that the British Methodist Church first ordained women to ministries of word and sacrament in the 1970s (although women had been admitted to the office of Local Preacher long before that).
It's also been my experience in British Methodism that men can often be quite fierce in their defending the equality of men and women before God and in our respective roles in the Kingdom. As a woman raised in a "headship" context, I know that I sometimes feel that I dare not get too worked up about the issue for the emotional toll it will take on me if I focus too much energy on the issue. I therefore appreciate men like my colleague, Dave Warnock who speak out forcefully on the subject of equality.
One of the frustrations of being a Methodist, however, is the often widespread view that the matter of women's equality and ministry has been "settled" long ago and that "no one" believes in headship any more and "no one" believes or acts as if women are inferior.
I invite those who think that this is a minor matter to read the following article: Women of the Kingdom by author and house-church promoter Felicity Dale. (Hat tip to Allan Bevere.)
Far from using language that suggests that these attitudes are in the past, Dale says that "the Holy Spirit is beginning to change sexist attitudes".
Which Methodist or other mainstream Protestant Christian would think that anyone in the 21st century would say something like
One of the joys and delights of being a Methodist is that women achieved full equality in the Church some decades ago. The US Methodist Church gave full clergy rights to women in 1956 (although some prior historic Methodist denominations had ordained women in the 19th century) and I believe that the British Methodist Church first ordained women to ministries of word and sacrament in the 1970s (although women had been admitted to the office of Local Preacher long before that).
It's also been my experience in British Methodism that men can often be quite fierce in their defending the equality of men and women before God and in our respective roles in the Kingdom. As a woman raised in a "headship" context, I know that I sometimes feel that I dare not get too worked up about the issue for the emotional toll it will take on me if I focus too much energy on the issue. I therefore appreciate men like my colleague, Dave Warnock who speak out forcefully on the subject of equality.
One of the frustrations of being a Methodist, however, is the often widespread view that the matter of women's equality and ministry has been "settled" long ago and that "no one" believes in headship any more and "no one" believes or acts as if women are inferior.
I invite those who think that this is a minor matter to read the following article: Women of the Kingdom by author and house-church promoter Felicity Dale. (Hat tip to Allan Bevere.)
Far from using language that suggests that these attitudes are in the past, Dale says that "the Holy Spirit is beginning to change sexist attitudes".
Which Methodist or other mainstream Protestant Christian would think that anyone in the 21st century would say something like
- “Of course, we’ll put both your names on the front cover. This book is far too important to have been written by a woman!”
- "God will use a woman—but only when there is no man available to do the job."
10 May 2010
Rise in Glory
I can't add a lot to the many memorial posts on the death of Octogenarian Methodist Blogger Olive Morgan of Octomusings so perhaps I can add a different photo instead. Like some other British Methodist Bloggers, I met Olive at a "Methodist Bloggers Conference" in early 2008.
An ever-present figure at Conference running the Methodist Evangelicals Together booth, Olive made a point of attending my ordination in Scarborough in June 2008. This is a photo of the two of us outside the Scarborough Spa Convention Centre after the service of Acceptance into Full Connexion and hours prior to my ordination.
I called this post "Rise in Glory" after the traditional wish: "May she rest in peace and rise in glory" because, although I can certainly imagine Olive being peaceful I somehow can't imagine her resting. The two times I met her in person, she was full of life and energy and enthusiasm for the Lord. She is the sort of person that I want to be like when I grow up. Blessings on your family until we meet again in the Kingdom, Olive.
03 May 2010
Sermon: Touchstone Moments
Link to a short sermon for Easter 6 based on the lectionary reading from Revelation 21:10, 21:22-22:5. Written for The Preacher Magazine: Touchstone Moments
02 May 2010
08 April 2010
Cyber-Mourning
Somehow or other - and I honestly don't remember the details - I "met up" with an old university friend over the internet. I think that Judy happened to read my blog and commented on it and we went from there. It turned out that Facebook was a good place for the two of us to interact.
Judy was one of the first people I met when I went to university and we were friends throughout the four years. We both sang in the chapel choir and we were both Theology majors. I was her Maid of Honor when she and Mike got married in the university chapel a year or two after university. Somehow, after the wedding, we drifted away and then, not so long ago (18 months? two years?) we reconnected.
It turned out to be one of those friendships where you just pick up where you left off with very little self-consciousness. I was amazed at how in-synch we still were. When we were in university in the 1970s, we both envisaged the day when women would be accepted in ministry. And both of us ended up "going into ministry" in middle-age. Because she was Roman Catholic, Judy took her M.Div. and became a Chaplain; I eventually ended up as a Methodist minister.
Facebook turned out to be a good venue for the two of us because we just interacted daily with each other, usually in trivial matters but sometimes in bigger matters. We played Farmville and Cafe World and together we righted the wrongs of the world in our status updates. When we wanted to "talk privately" we sent each other emails, but a lot of the interaction was banter.
We also talked on the phone a couple of times. Judy had been battling cancer since I'd met her again and, at one point, she talked about seeking quality of life rather than quantity. Well, as much as you can do whilst battling cancer, Judy got her quality over quantity, dying suddenly and unexpectedly on the 21st of March.
And, if I'm being brutally honest, I miss her all the more for having that several-times-a-day contact with her and all the little banterings. The last thing she wrote on my status update was in response to me being pleased about getting a product to review on "Amazon Prime" for the first time. She wrote "I'm so very glad for you" and I was going to respond that that seemed like a big emotion for such a small thing. But I didn't and now I guess I'm probably glad that I didn't; it's good to be happy for others, no matter how trivial the matter and I'm glad I didn't diminish that.
Judy also wrote something else a few weeks before she died and I'm using that on my signature in a Christian forum. She wrote: "People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." Truer words were never written.
I know that we both shared the hope of Christ's resurrection for ourselves and I know that we will share in his presence for eternity. But this isn't really supposed to be a theological piece, just some thoughts about missing my cyber-friend and real life friend. May Judy rest in peace and rise in Glory.
Judy was one of the first people I met when I went to university and we were friends throughout the four years. We both sang in the chapel choir and we were both Theology majors. I was her Maid of Honor when she and Mike got married in the university chapel a year or two after university. Somehow, after the wedding, we drifted away and then, not so long ago (18 months? two years?) we reconnected.
It turned out to be one of those friendships where you just pick up where you left off with very little self-consciousness. I was amazed at how in-synch we still were. When we were in university in the 1970s, we both envisaged the day when women would be accepted in ministry. And both of us ended up "going into ministry" in middle-age. Because she was Roman Catholic, Judy took her M.Div. and became a Chaplain; I eventually ended up as a Methodist minister.
Facebook turned out to be a good venue for the two of us because we just interacted daily with each other, usually in trivial matters but sometimes in bigger matters. We played Farmville and Cafe World and together we righted the wrongs of the world in our status updates. When we wanted to "talk privately" we sent each other emails, but a lot of the interaction was banter.
We also talked on the phone a couple of times. Judy had been battling cancer since I'd met her again and, at one point, she talked about seeking quality of life rather than quantity. Well, as much as you can do whilst battling cancer, Judy got her quality over quantity, dying suddenly and unexpectedly on the 21st of March.
And, if I'm being brutally honest, I miss her all the more for having that several-times-a-day contact with her and all the little banterings. The last thing she wrote on my status update was in response to me being pleased about getting a product to review on "Amazon Prime" for the first time. She wrote "I'm so very glad for you" and I was going to respond that that seemed like a big emotion for such a small thing. But I didn't and now I guess I'm probably glad that I didn't; it's good to be happy for others, no matter how trivial the matter and I'm glad I didn't diminish that.
Judy also wrote something else a few weeks before she died and I'm using that on my signature in a Christian forum. She wrote: "People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." Truer words were never written.
I know that we both shared the hope of Christ's resurrection for ourselves and I know that we will share in his presence for eternity. But this isn't really supposed to be a theological piece, just some thoughts about missing my cyber-friend and real life friend. May Judy rest in peace and rise in Glory.
01 April 2010
Christian Economic Life - Post 3: Human Rights
I wanted to think a bit about human rights in the context of Christian economic life. This might seem like a digression, but I don't think it is because a lot of the debate about what kind of economic system is just often seems to center around the concept of human rights.
The first problem I have is about talking about human rights is that, theologically, I don't believe in them. According to Christian theology everything that human beings have is mercy or grace, including our very lives. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord. Therefore, if we are speaking strictly in Christian theological terms, we can't really speak about "rights".
However, I'm not ready to dismiss the concept of human rights out of hand. I suspect that, no matter which position one takes in regard to economics, all of us would have an instinctive problem with the "tough luck" approach. "You are poor, despite working 18 hours a day, tough luck; in the eyes of God you have no rights." Or "You worked hard for that money, but we're taking it away from you in order to help others less fortunate than you; tough luck, in the eyes of God you have no rights." I suspect that at least one of those statements will rankle you!
For me, the concept of "human rights" is a secular expression of the Arminian (and catholic) theological belief that "God is no respector of persons" (to use the KJV/AV language).
Theologically, I believe that God wants all people to come to him, regardless of rank, status, skin color, community affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or any other characteristic that people can think of. God does not love aristocrats more than peasants. He does not love rich people more than poor people. He does not love men more than women. As the African congregation I served in London often said at the beginning of the service: "Whoever you are, you are welcome here. Whatever you nationality, tribe, language, skin color or gender, everyone is welcome in the house of God."
This message seems like something so natural to many of us in the United States, that we don't even question it. Yet, it was certainly part of Jesus' original Good News, because it was taken for granted in the Greco-Roman culture that the gods did prefer some people to others and that - for example - aristocrats, men, and the freeborn were ontologically better people than peasants, women and slaves. My African readers can correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the reasons this message was so powerful in the London African congregation was that, back home, different tribal groups were often viewed as being ontologically better than others. This congregation understood this part of the Good News because the opposite reality had been part of their life experience.
I think that this theological conviction that "God is no respector of persons" can very adequately be expressed in secular language by the idea that all people are endowed with certain inalienable rights. It is actually the matter of "What are these rights?" that is probably going to be the big bone of contention. I'll try to start thinking about that in the next post.
The first problem I have is about talking about human rights is that, theologically, I don't believe in them. According to Christian theology everything that human beings have is mercy or grace, including our very lives. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord. Therefore, if we are speaking strictly in Christian theological terms, we can't really speak about "rights".
However, I'm not ready to dismiss the concept of human rights out of hand. I suspect that, no matter which position one takes in regard to economics, all of us would have an instinctive problem with the "tough luck" approach. "You are poor, despite working 18 hours a day, tough luck; in the eyes of God you have no rights." Or "You worked hard for that money, but we're taking it away from you in order to help others less fortunate than you; tough luck, in the eyes of God you have no rights." I suspect that at least one of those statements will rankle you!
For me, the concept of "human rights" is a secular expression of the Arminian (and catholic) theological belief that "God is no respector of persons" (to use the KJV/AV language).
Theologically, I believe that God wants all people to come to him, regardless of rank, status, skin color, community affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or any other characteristic that people can think of. God does not love aristocrats more than peasants. He does not love rich people more than poor people. He does not love men more than women. As the African congregation I served in London often said at the beginning of the service: "Whoever you are, you are welcome here. Whatever you nationality, tribe, language, skin color or gender, everyone is welcome in the house of God."
This message seems like something so natural to many of us in the United States, that we don't even question it. Yet, it was certainly part of Jesus' original Good News, because it was taken for granted in the Greco-Roman culture that the gods did prefer some people to others and that - for example - aristocrats, men, and the freeborn were ontologically better people than peasants, women and slaves. My African readers can correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the reasons this message was so powerful in the London African congregation was that, back home, different tribal groups were often viewed as being ontologically better than others. This congregation understood this part of the Good News because the opposite reality had been part of their life experience.
I think that this theological conviction that "God is no respector of persons" can very adequately be expressed in secular language by the idea that all people are endowed with certain inalienable rights. It is actually the matter of "What are these rights?" that is probably going to be the big bone of contention. I'll try to start thinking about that in the next post.
30 March 2010
Christian Economic Life - Post 2: Capitalism
Capitalism. What, exactly, is it? Is it a process of running an economy? Or is it a philosophy, or a set of beliefs? And what, if anything, is the "opposite" of capitalism?
My take on popular American culture is that capitalism is regarded as both a way to run an economy and as a philosophy. I also think that, in popular American culture, the opposite of capitalism is communism. Socialism is the soft-form of communism, but it is still viewed as a form of stealing: stealing from those who have worked hard in order to give to those who do not work hard.
I also think that the specter of The Cold War is embedded deeply in American culture. And, since major social experiences typically live on for generations, our culture will carry the shadow of the Cold War for many decades into the future. The shadow of The Cold War provides us with the belief that "Communism and socialism are the enemies of Christianity and the enemies of capitalism, therefore capitalism is a Christian virtue."
This causes many Christians to view capitalism in a very uncritical way. After all, God clearly does not want us to have a communist or socialist society, therefore God must want us to have a capitalist society.
It might surprise some people to hear that I'm actually in favor of capitalism. I'm also in favor of socialist values and I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive.
But I don't believe in free-market, laissez-faire capitalism. I don't believe in the capitalist mantra that allowing capital and labor to flow into and out of sectors according to the laws of supply and demand will result in the greatest social good. I also don't believe in "trickle-down". As I say these things, I also acknowledge that the question of "How should an economy be regulated?" is a difficult one with no easy answers.
And, if I believe in socialism, I'd much rather that the socialism was embedded in our value system of how we want our society to behave. What I mean by that is that my dream is a society where there is a broad consensus that governments, communities and individuals will work to "love their neighbor".
In sum, I believe that capitalism can be used as an operating system to further an objective (philosophy) of "the greater good" or "loving one's neighbor". Using a capitalist operating system doesn't necessarily mean having to follow a survival-of-the-fittest philosophy. And pursuing a philosophy of "pursuit of the greater good" in our society doesn't necessarily have to mean top-down direction and, as far as I am concerned, it certainly doesn't imply iron-fisted totalitarianism.
I'm imagining at least one person saying that pursuing an approach of "loving one's neighbor" is not something that can be legislated, that it requires a conversion experience. I agree. But I am talking here about a Christian approach to the economy. But I also think that, to a large extent, European Socialism does embody more of a social consensus to love one's neighbor and to look out for the poor. I do believe that, however much empathy an American individual might have for those who are down on their luck, that as a society we believe in and embrace the pursuit of profits as the greatest social and spiritual good that we can collectively pursue.
Your thoughts?
My take on popular American culture is that capitalism is regarded as both a way to run an economy and as a philosophy. I also think that, in popular American culture, the opposite of capitalism is communism. Socialism is the soft-form of communism, but it is still viewed as a form of stealing: stealing from those who have worked hard in order to give to those who do not work hard.
I also think that the specter of The Cold War is embedded deeply in American culture. And, since major social experiences typically live on for generations, our culture will carry the shadow of the Cold War for many decades into the future. The shadow of The Cold War provides us with the belief that "Communism and socialism are the enemies of Christianity and the enemies of capitalism, therefore capitalism is a Christian virtue."
This causes many Christians to view capitalism in a very uncritical way. After all, God clearly does not want us to have a communist or socialist society, therefore God must want us to have a capitalist society.
It might surprise some people to hear that I'm actually in favor of capitalism. I'm also in favor of socialist values and I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive.
But I don't believe in free-market, laissez-faire capitalism. I don't believe in the capitalist mantra that allowing capital and labor to flow into and out of sectors according to the laws of supply and demand will result in the greatest social good. I also don't believe in "trickle-down". As I say these things, I also acknowledge that the question of "How should an economy be regulated?" is a difficult one with no easy answers.
And, if I believe in socialism, I'd much rather that the socialism was embedded in our value system of how we want our society to behave. What I mean by that is that my dream is a society where there is a broad consensus that governments, communities and individuals will work to "love their neighbor".
In sum, I believe that capitalism can be used as an operating system to further an objective (philosophy) of "the greater good" or "loving one's neighbor". Using a capitalist operating system doesn't necessarily mean having to follow a survival-of-the-fittest philosophy. And pursuing a philosophy of "pursuit of the greater good" in our society doesn't necessarily have to mean top-down direction and, as far as I am concerned, it certainly doesn't imply iron-fisted totalitarianism.
I'm imagining at least one person saying that pursuing an approach of "loving one's neighbor" is not something that can be legislated, that it requires a conversion experience. I agree. But I am talking here about a Christian approach to the economy. But I also think that, to a large extent, European Socialism does embody more of a social consensus to love one's neighbor and to look out for the poor. I do believe that, however much empathy an American individual might have for those who are down on their luck, that as a society we believe in and embrace the pursuit of profits as the greatest social and spiritual good that we can collectively pursue.
Your thoughts?
28 March 2010
Christian Economic Life - Post 1: Foundation
I'm going to try a thought-experiment here. I want to think about what an economy run on Christian principles might look like. And this is quite literally a "thought experiment". At the moment, I have no idea of what I intend to write in the future, but I want simply to think out loud, building on ideas step by step.
So here are some initial thoughts for a foundation:
1) Christian thinking on economics should begin with Christian and biblical principles, not with economic principles.
2) That being said, it seems to me that a good principle for a Christian thought experiment on our economic life would be: honor God and love your neighbor. (There are actually a number of principles that the bible expresses on economic life that a lot of us might not like; forbidding the giving or receiving of debt is one of these.)
3) As I think and write, I will try to separate "What works" from "What should be". I will recognize that "What should be" doesn't always work well. In separating the two principles, I intend to avoid what seems to me to be a usual problem in Christian economic thinking: "That operational method doesn't work, therefore it is unjust".
4) The unconscious, unarticulated principle of American economic life is free-market capitalism. I do not accept free-market capitalism as being uncritically "good" or "just" in Christian terms. I intend to reject a lot of the values that under-pin free-market capitalism, particularly the view that the possession of money (capital) endows an individual with more status in the eyes of God.
Your thoughts welcome.
So here are some initial thoughts for a foundation:
1) Christian thinking on economics should begin with Christian and biblical principles, not with economic principles.
2) That being said, it seems to me that a good principle for a Christian thought experiment on our economic life would be: honor God and love your neighbor. (There are actually a number of principles that the bible expresses on economic life that a lot of us might not like; forbidding the giving or receiving of debt is one of these.)
3) As I think and write, I will try to separate "What works" from "What should be". I will recognize that "What should be" doesn't always work well. In separating the two principles, I intend to avoid what seems to me to be a usual problem in Christian economic thinking: "That operational method doesn't work, therefore it is unjust".
4) The unconscious, unarticulated principle of American economic life is free-market capitalism. I do not accept free-market capitalism as being uncritically "good" or "just" in Christian terms. I intend to reject a lot of the values that under-pin free-market capitalism, particularly the view that the possession of money (capital) endows an individual with more status in the eyes of God.
Your thoughts welcome.
27 March 2010
Short Question
Do Americans understand that the current financial crisis was directly caused by a lack of governmental regulation and by the belief that the establishment of free markets will always make our economy come out right in the end?
I think not.
I think not.
12 March 2010
Church Growth?
A short post, open to your projections and comments. :-)
Once upon a time, the general culture was amenable to church-going for a lot of reasons that didn't have anything to do with God or to a commitment to being a disciple.
Now, the general culture is less amenable to church-going.
Instead of focusing on trying to get people into the door, churches should focus even more on faithful worship, faithful teaching and committed discipleship. If this results in declining church membership, so be it.
Whatever the format is of the above commitments, I don't care. I expect that different formats will appeal to different disciples and I think that's fine. Just let's stop trying to make ourselves attractive to people who are not primarily interested in worshiping or learning about God. All we're doing is watering down the Gospel.
Comments?
Once upon a time, the general culture was amenable to church-going for a lot of reasons that didn't have anything to do with God or to a commitment to being a disciple.
Now, the general culture is less amenable to church-going.
Instead of focusing on trying to get people into the door, churches should focus even more on faithful worship, faithful teaching and committed discipleship. If this results in declining church membership, so be it.
Whatever the format is of the above commitments, I don't care. I expect that different formats will appeal to different disciples and I think that's fine. Just let's stop trying to make ourselves attractive to people who are not primarily interested in worshiping or learning about God. All we're doing is watering down the Gospel.
Comments?
11 March 2010
The Emperor has no clothes
Over on my friend David's blog, Big Circumstance, I managed to blurt out an idea that's been in my head for awhile but which never came out in quite the same way before.
The idea is this: lots of people who want to follow Jesus hate Sunday morning services. They find them energy-sapping and exhausting, like a terrible meeting at work that you really don't want to attend but have to. Only the thing about church is that you don't have to attend if you don't feel like it.
I think that this is actually the real challenge to the Church today and no amount of contemporary worship, no amount of praise songs and no amount of "modern worship" is going to "fix" the problem. Trying to make existing Sunday services attractive to people who would rather go to the dentist is just a no-win game and I think that's what we're trying to do. US congregations, not having yet declined in the way that the Church has done in the UK, seem even more stuck in the mode of thinking that if Sunday services just get more "modern" that more people will come.
Now, my only problem is that I don't really know what to "do" about this. I do think that small groups may be part of an "answer" and I suspect that this is part of where the Emerging Church movement is at. But I think that small groups are going to have to be places where individuals can share of themselves and be real and contribute to the growth of others in the group so that everyone can go out from the meeting into the world. They can't be just another meeting. And they can't be primarily led by one person week after week or they just turn into mini-Sunday services.
Any other thoughts?
The idea is this: lots of people who want to follow Jesus hate Sunday morning services. They find them energy-sapping and exhausting, like a terrible meeting at work that you really don't want to attend but have to. Only the thing about church is that you don't have to attend if you don't feel like it.
I think that this is actually the real challenge to the Church today and no amount of contemporary worship, no amount of praise songs and no amount of "modern worship" is going to "fix" the problem. Trying to make existing Sunday services attractive to people who would rather go to the dentist is just a no-win game and I think that's what we're trying to do. US congregations, not having yet declined in the way that the Church has done in the UK, seem even more stuck in the mode of thinking that if Sunday services just get more "modern" that more people will come.
Now, my only problem is that I don't really know what to "do" about this. I do think that small groups may be part of an "answer" and I suspect that this is part of where the Emerging Church movement is at. But I think that small groups are going to have to be places where individuals can share of themselves and be real and contribute to the growth of others in the group so that everyone can go out from the meeting into the world. They can't be just another meeting. And they can't be primarily led by one person week after week or they just turn into mini-Sunday services.
Any other thoughts?
08 February 2010
Other languages use different words
Other languages use different words for things. The word for 'chair' in French is 'chaise' and, in French, 'chair' means 'flesh'. The word for 'poison' in German is 'Gift' - a fact that caused first great consternation and then some hilarity many years ago when my mother told her German cousin that she wanted to buy his family 'a Gift'.
Other languages use different words. You think that this would be obvious. But when it comes to the word 'God', apparently not. While we're happy to let the French use the word 'Dieu' and the Germans use the word 'Gott', apparently we English-speaking Christians need to panic and object most strongly when Malay-speaking Christians want to use the Malay word for God, which is 'Allah'.
In what seems to be becoming a fashion of being misinformedly-informed, today I heard yet another person praying for the salvation of Christians in Malaysia who want to use the Malay word for 'God' to speak of 'God'.
Apparently, many English-speaking Christians seem to think that 'Allah' is the name of a god - like Zeus or Thor - rather than the Malay word for God. And, of course, it's also the Arabic word for 'God'; the Malay word has Arabic roots.
I wish this idea that Malaysian Christians are not truly Christian because they want to use their word for 'God' would go away. Today's pray-er actually prayed that Christians do not worship Allah, but we worship Jehovah. Well, actually, 'Jehovah' is a highly debatable pronunciation of the tetragrammaton which should not be pronounced in the first place. But how many English-speaking Christians studiously avoid saying 'God' in order to say 'Jehovah'? Not many that I know.
So before we start praying for the conversion of the heathen, let's make sure we know what we are talking about in the first place.
I'm putting on my tin hat now, because I reckon I'm probably going to get quite a bit a flack on this.
Other languages use different words. You think that this would be obvious. But when it comes to the word 'God', apparently not. While we're happy to let the French use the word 'Dieu' and the Germans use the word 'Gott', apparently we English-speaking Christians need to panic and object most strongly when Malay-speaking Christians want to use the Malay word for God, which is 'Allah'.
In what seems to be becoming a fashion of being misinformedly-informed, today I heard yet another person praying for the salvation of Christians in Malaysia who want to use the Malay word for 'God' to speak of 'God'.
Apparently, many English-speaking Christians seem to think that 'Allah' is the name of a god - like Zeus or Thor - rather than the Malay word for God. And, of course, it's also the Arabic word for 'God'; the Malay word has Arabic roots.
I wish this idea that Malaysian Christians are not truly Christian because they want to use their word for 'God' would go away. Today's pray-er actually prayed that Christians do not worship Allah, but we worship Jehovah. Well, actually, 'Jehovah' is a highly debatable pronunciation of the tetragrammaton which should not be pronounced in the first place. But how many English-speaking Christians studiously avoid saying 'God' in order to say 'Jehovah'? Not many that I know.
So before we start praying for the conversion of the heathen, let's make sure we know what we are talking about in the first place.
I'm putting on my tin hat now, because I reckon I'm probably going to get quite a bit a flack on this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
