Shhhh… this is secret!!!!
Which is why I’m posting it on a public website…
Today (The fact that this came in on the day before the 4th seems very strategic, especially considering the appeals to nationalism within.) I got a letter from Advancing Native Missions.
They say, amongst other things:
Please forgive the urgent, confidential nature of this letter. But I do not want it to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists.
This statement grieves me. First, it is setting the reader up emotionally to fear and dislike Muslims. It also introduces a political theme which runs through the course of the letter, the gist of which is that if American Christians don’t send ANM money Muslims will invade America and make their daughters wear burkahs while instituting Sharia law. (It is so hard to avoid hyperbole here. I am actually angry, and working hard to channel this anger into grief. ) Finally, it invites the reader into an act of political espionage, betraying their confidence in God’s sovereignty, favoring the US government over others, and whetting their souls unto encouraging violence against Muslim nations.
ANM supports native missionaries reaching out to their own communities, which can often be dangerous, and thus requires outside support. I am cool with all of that. I would gladly send money to people spreading the peculiar truth of the gospel. I won’t send money to politically charged organizations.
Here’s more from the letter:
It is imperative I hear back from you this week. That’s why I’ve enclosed a confidential survey… (it) will let me know you agree with me on the severity of the consequences of what I’m about to tell you.. if we as a Christian people do nothing.
I guess I’m blowing their cover here. I’m curious about the “we” implied here, and who will face what consequences. My guess is he means comfortable American Christian conservatives.
You see, I’m convinced we in the United States of America may be in a deep sleep. We are following the same path of least resistance which is proving the downfall of many European nations.
Notice the nationalism. Notice the rhetoric prompting fear in the reader.
I’m referring to a radical Islamic agenda gaining ground that few have seen coming. Western European nations are rapidly losing their cultures to the Muslim enclaves which are growing larger and more powerful every year.
Ah. The Muslims. Europeans are losing their culture. It could happen to us, too! What culture, exactly is being lost? Is it the socialism of France? The fascism of Italy and Germany? The imperialism of Great Britain? Somehow I don’t think they meant the neutrality of Switzerland.
What culture should we be afraid of losing? Americans are forfeiting individual liberty on every side. Conservatives are renouncing civil liberties in favor of martial security. Liberals are forfeiting fiscal liberties in favor of egalitarian socialism. There are evangelicals on both sides.
The strength of America has been its lack of national culture. Liberty has invited anyone who is willing to pay their own way to come and live as they want to live, so long as they don’t encroach on others. Adoption of security and egalitarianism threaten the foundation of liberty.
Later in the letter:
As Muslims immigrate… they do not assimilate… Rather, they… in many cases succeed in implementing Islamic Sharia law!
Recently, a nurse from… West Virginia (said) Muslims are coming from abroad just to give birth which automatically makes their newborns American citizens…
Yes, the doors are wide open here in America to immigration from radical Islamic nations! Sharia law encompassing the entire globe is the goal of Islam — and they are working diligently to see that the US is no exception!
Okay, this is where I started to get angry. I am an advocate for open immigration. Immigration quotas are the number one reason oppressive regimes can behave so awfully. If their people could easily immigrate to America they would be sweating bullets, afraid to lose their slaves to a land of freedom where they could work to put an end to the oppressor’s regime.
The overt anti-foreigner bias here is hate, pure hate. I can’t imagine how words like these shape our attitudes towards Muslims currently living and working peacefully among us. How does the reader of this letter see the woman in the burkah, or head scarf? Can he have compassion for her when he fears her?
The letter goes on and on in this strain. Then it asks us to support their missionary efforts within Muslim nations.
A Muslim will listen to a former Muslim. An Arab will listen to an Arab.
Lord knows, after reading this letter I won’t want to talk to them! Let them talk to their own! God forbid they should come here!
As a student on a very diverse campus I meet a great many Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, among others. I have never felt threatened in these situations, and I have always been met with an openness to listen to my own perspective. People will listen to people. Slapping labels on things is divisive.
He goes on to list the ways Muslims are open to the gospel in a way unlike ever before, when shared by a native missionary. Like I said before, I think this is great, but I’m worried the gospel they are receiving is tainted with Scofieldian Zionism. They may be switching sides just to be on the winning one. More espionage.
He calls this
perhaps the greatest battle against evil that has ever been waged!
and proclaims that
Together we can stand up to those who would destroy our nation and subject the entire world to radical Islam.
Again, the militaristic language tied in with nationalism.
It is often a good rhetorical move to exaggerate your opponent’s strength in order to recruit greater resources to one’s cause. Bureaucratic agencies have been using this tool to justify increased budgets for centuries. The CIA warned of the Soviet economic strength for the same reason. The truth was that the Soviet economy was crumbling from within, just as Mises and Hayek said it would.
I don’t see what in the letter was so top-secret. Again, that admonition was merely an invitation to enter into the power-over mechanisms of espionage.
I looked at their survey. It includes the questions:
Do you consider radical Islam’s goal of world domination to be an imminent threat to the future of the American republic?
I like the use of the word republic there. That’s a key term to signal solidarity among conservatives. No. I’m not worried about Islamic global domination, just as I was not worried about Soviet domination, just as I would not have fallen prey to propaganda during WWII claiming imminent global domination by the Nazis. I’m not chicken-$#!*. I believe in God’s sovereignty.
Is the U.S. government doing enough to stop Islam’s goal of Sharia law being implemented in America, particularly since radical Islam is basing their methodology on the successful model they’ve used in Europe as described in the enclosed letter?
Wow. Loaded question. The government should not be concerned about such things. The European nations were offering welfare programs which incentivized immigration. They also employ political systems which award incredible privileges to those who control the law. No wonder Muslims are competing with other special interest groups for the power to wield the billy-club. Eliminate the privileges. Restrict the law to protecting rights and enforcing contracts. End all wealth transfers. These are the real threats to liberty.
What further concerns me are the various accountability organizations which have endorsed ANM. It makes me skeptical of other charities they endorse.
Please don’t send these people money. If you know of people serving as missionaries under their umbrella, and doing good work, then work to free them from association with this group.
House vs. Senate
Happy 4th, y’all.
Today I read this in an email from Americans For Prosperity. (I got in a heated argument with some hyper-Republicans at their national event last year. I tried to explain to someone how all flags are gangster symbols.)
The issue is the Cap and Trade bill, some notes on the House’s vote:
* Just two states, California (32) and New York (25) provided more than a quarter of the 219 total yes votes
* Democrats in several key targeted Senate states voted majority no, including Indiana (3 of 5), Arkansas (2 of 3), and West Virginia (2 of 2)
* Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota, both statewide elected Democrats, vote no
Now, I don’t care about the details here. What stands out to me is just how powerful California and New York are in the House.
I’m really liking the whole bicameral legislature thing right now. These two powerhouses can almost veto any bill not in their interests in the House - and therefore for the country. And they should be able to. They represent the proportional number of citizens.
But the Senate also has to vote on this thing, and over there, each state only gets two votes, which means the bill might not pass. And the bill should not pass. It is a bad bill. It will cost a whole lot, and the payoffs are not going to be so great.
Besides, envoronmentalism is pretty much just a luxury good. The people don’t want that much luxury, especially not during a recession with gas prices inching up again.
Anyway. Bicameral legislatures. Good idea. I mean, if you have to have a legislature, which I’m not so sure we do, but if you have to have one at least make it as ineffective as possible.
My Thoughts on Cap and Trade
For starters Steve Margolis (former prof of mine – and friend) has a piece at Newmark’s Door on the cap and trade bill.
Ironically, an outright tax would have been better than the cap and trade plan. What the current bill does is assign a privilege to pollute, and then allow this privilege to be bought and sold. Bought and sold privileges… hmmm… sounds like aristocracy.
The increase in living expenses passed on to the consumer is passed on whether or not you pollute. The greenest muffin hugger will pay along with the dude in the diesel dulley Dodge. But that’s not the end of it. Privileges like these also reduce economic activity. That reduction in activity may or may not be in the areas which pollute. We can’t know.
Finally, the law will cause interference in communication of prices. It will make some technologies which use less (measureable) carbon more feasible, even though they might be less efficient. We started using cars because they are more efficient than horses. Wherever the government extends a stick to induce behaviors, prices get messed up and efficiency falters.
Is efficiency all that matters? Isn’t better fuel efficiency what this bill intends to create? People will demand better efficiency when it really matters.
As to whether socialism is oppressive or not: sometimes socialism is predicated on purely benevolent intentions. Usually it sees a need, and goes about looking for a good way to satisfy that need. Often the quickest way to get what we want is to take it from someone else. So, since the poor need better health coverage we should take some money from the well off and give it to the poor.
But this encourages everyone to use more health services. If you have Medicaid and the baby sneezes you go to the ER. If you have to pay out of pocket you wait until the morning and go to the clinic. People respond to prices. Take away the prices and they over-use. The intentions are sweet, the consequences are bitter.
People who care about the poor should give them of their own money. I do. But taking money from the unwilling destroys any virtue in the act.
Culs De Sac
this is the proper spelling of the plural.
Virginia’s DOT recently changed the rules for developers building new neighborhoods.
They don’t want any more culs de sac.
They say culs de sac generate traffic bottlenecks and make it difficult for the state to maintain roads, and for emergency vehicles to access neighborhoods.
Maybe they do.
But traffic bottlenecks can be engineered around. And no-public-use alleys can be built to make access for emergency vehicles and state maintenance vehicles easier.
What strikes me as interesting is the failure to consider decreases in real estate tax revenues.
If houses on culs de sac are desirable, they sell for more. They also make more efficient use of land. So, there are more houses, and each house is more valuable than if built on through-streets.
Then the tax revenues from these houses will be higher!
So, why not just use some of these tax revenues to fix the bottlenecking problems around culs de sac?
Because roads are not maintained out of real estate revenues, but out of gas taxes, and vehicle registration fees, etc.
The VDOT has been told by the state senate that they must decrease their budget. So, they decide not to maintain culs de sac. I wonder whether the boys who have to budget schools and fire departments and whatever else real-estate taxes are supposed to fund have figured this out yet?
I know developers have figured out how it will impact them ,and they are not happy. Lots of plans will have to be changed, or prices for homes lowered.
Now, for a twist, this all might be a good thing. HOAs will now have to maintain local cul de sac roads. Fees will rise. I doubt the cul de sac will go extinct. Prices for homes may go down, and earn a lesser premium for developers (lost surplus) but at a net gain to the taxpayer as the home owners will be paying for their own roads. This may expand to even more local ownership of roads, and perhaps someday, and end to state maintenance and state roads altogether.
Now, the privilege of state maintenance afforded to some and not to others disturbs me, but if we can eliminate the privilege altogether I would be more satisfied than if we were to extend it to all.
Anyway, there’s more to this story, and I intend to dig some of it up for a policy paper. If you know someone interested in publishing this research I’d love to know about it.
Finally, the bureaucratic position of the VDOT may the passage of this new rule almost completely invulnerable to feedback. A half-dozen dudes in a room made the decision all by themselves.
Cavenaugh’s Being Consumed Reviewed
in this quarter’s Faith and Economics (sorry no 2009 issues up) by John Larrivee. He has many of the same criticisms I had of the book (as far as I could read it) much better stated.
My main problem is still the idea of the formation of moral imagination under Capitalism. The claim is that humans which can often be represented as either hands (to help work and generate more wealth) or mouths (consumers of wealth) can also become nothing but eyes (desirers), and even nothing but desireres of desire.
Now, why is this any worse than any other false moral imagination? I don’t see how it can be.
Also, and I am desperate to know, what are the actual mechanisms by which this formation of moral imagination occurs???
This process is merely claimed, not demonstrated, and certainly not explained. The argument is so vacuous I have nothing to agree with or contest. Its also intellectually dissatisfying.
Anyway, I am quite enamoured of my new issue of F&E.
Reconciling Economic Liberty and Biblical Freedom
I just got my new Spring 2009 issue of Faith and Economics, a journal from the Association of Christian Economists, of which I am a student member (which means I don’t really pay).
Kenneth G. Elzinga and Matthew R. Givens have a paper on Christianity and Hayek.
They define economic liberty (per Hayek, 1960) as the “state in which man is not subject to coercion by the arbitrary will of another or others.” So far, so good.
Then they define Biblical freedom as “being set free from the curse and destructiveness of human selfishness.” Okay.
So, can these be reconciled?
Economic liberty is inter-personal. Indeed nothing is economic until other people are involved (Wicksteed, 1914). Mises showed us that catallaxy is about exchange.
Biblical freedom is intra-personal.
Does the one affect the other?
The journal article is really an attempt to say Hayek’s definition of liberty and understanding of economics relies on a Judeo-Christian view of man - that is - self-interested. It goes further to say Hayek was influenced by the Judeo-Christian worldview (ugh) it other ways as well.
Fine.
Hayek’s liberty leaves every man free to destroy his own life, but prohibits him from destroying the life of anyone else.
Biblical freedom separates a man from his propensity to destroy his own life.
But how is that achieved?
I believe by regeneration. I believe a Christian has been liberated from slavery to sin, and left free to chose whether to sin or not. Which imposes upon unbelievers total depravity. Sorry.
The sacrifice by which Christ purchased our freedom obliges every Christian to forfeit his own life and improve the lives of everyone else!
Does this contrast economic liberty?
I don’t think it can upset it. It can make barriers to liberty, such as incumbant privileges, easier to overcome. I am tempted to say, that without the willing sacrifice of some, achieving economic liberty may take longer to achieve. How will we get rid of subsidies without injustice unless someone volunteers to buy them out?
Just some thoughts.
PS: the article cites Peter Boettke, Chris Coyne, and Bruce Caldwell, among others.
Cheating Kills IP and Pushes Innovation Forward
So, I’ve been learning the same stuff as many other Economics students around the world have been learning for the last year. Some teachers are better than others at presenting material. But many of them have been using the same set of questions and answers for years. Most of these questions and answers are freely available to the savvy student. Many of the exam questions are likewise predictable.
This is in many ways a natural consequence of the low cost of sharing information.
It makes it much more difficult to grade students, however.
Let’s take Macro for example. My professer used David Romer’s standard text, which I aquired for free in pdf form, along with a copy of the solutions manual, also in pdf.
Most of my fellow students also had these resources at their disposal.
The professor made the homework assignments 5% of the total grade. This is somewhat trivial, especially considering grade inflation. It provides an incentive to work through the problems, but not too harsh a penalty if you miss an assignment. It also does not provide much incentive to copy the answers by rote from the solutions manual.
But why settle for this arrangement? Why not assign new questions every year as a part of a research agenda?
I predict super-lecturers freely available on you-tube for an expanding array of disciplines, along with super notes available on wikis, etc.
I predict free texts, either professionally finished, or merely professor’s notes in pdf or word docs.
Professors will spend less and less time preparing for class, and more and more time mentoring individual students!!! (This is most likely if education is more privatized) This mentorship will include new research and new questions. Students will be actively adding to the body of knowledge on day 1.
More advanced graduate students will be the real work-horses of this system (as if they were not already), checking the work of their under-classmen, recommending them for new tasks. Employment in research institutions can expand… by expanding the research, duh.
Organization of what to study, creation of new assignments, and dovetailing of multiple assignments into cohesive bodies of knowledge will become the task of full professors / team leaders. Productivity of valueable knowledge will be the measure, as it is, of the best schools/firms.
Just some ramblings, but relevant, especially with the advent of better file-sharing devices and media apparati.
Consumerism vs. Capitalism vs. “Capitalism”
In conversations about difficult topics it is important to share definitions. Capitalism is a word of many meanings.
In this conversation I lay out a defense of what I consider pure Capitalism and how Christians ought to behave among themselves, and what positions they ought to advocate - if any - in public policy debates. I invoke Rand and Hauerwas.
My discussant is one Ted Troxell, who was a worthy and helpful conversationalist.
I will now cut and paste the whole conversation, in the hopes of creating a smooth bit of prose rather than a dialogue on these ideas. For now, you all have my notes:
Fighting Over Surpluses
.jpg)
Kids often fight over things which were gifts from their parents.
Suppose I slice a cake into several (unequal) pieces, and distribute them to my children. Now, this is cake mind you, not bread, not water. It is a pure bonus. Dessert. So I dole out the cake. It is quite likely that an argument will erupt over the unfairness of my distribution. (Jesus tells a parable about day laborers which involves similar unfairness.) If the argument is annoying enough to me I may confiscate all the cake and eat it myself, perhaps while the children are watching, if I am particularly annoyed. (The fact that this is 1. Bad for me - I don’t need any cake, and 2. Only likely to generate more fussing, may become illustrative in what follows.)
This is what happens when altruism or tyranny are introduced to exchanges.
Exchange wasn’t anybody’s idea. It is ubiquitous. It occurs wherever there are 2 or more people not trying to kill each other, or dying for each other.
Imagine a spectrum of ethical impulses. At one far end is the Power-Under impulse. Power-Under is radical altruism. It seeks the best for the other party at its own expense. At the other far end is the Power-Over impulse. Power-Over is absolute tyranny. It seeks the best for itself at the other party’s expense. In the middle we might find the Ethic of Exchange. Here, power is neutralized. There are voluntary mutual transactions which generate surplusses. People trade, buy and sell, swap, etc. employing their comparative advantages and making their differences work to everyone’s advantage while each looks only to their own gain.
Economics primarily looks inside of the realm of exchange, or Catallaxy, as the Austrians call it.
Once an transaction has been completed the surplus is divided among the buyer and seller. Economists look at the lens inside and Edgeworth box and say the transaction may occur anywhere within that lens, most likely along the contract curve, but where along that curve depends upon bargaining abilities. Many of the political controversies of our day attempt to assign a procedure for allocating these surpluses.
Whenever law attempts to establish a prescribed (and often arbitrary) procedure for allocating surpluses it calls upon one party to adopt a Power-Under position (involuntary adoption of the Power-Under position is oppression), or it grants a Power-Over position to the other party (assigns a privilege, right, or entitlement). Once these ethical positions are reverted to, however, we move outside the Ethic of Exchange. Instead of quibbling over the surpluses they are destroyed! Most often they are then consumed by the state (or the overweight father). Future exchanges are discouraged. Individuals move toward self-sufficiency (starvation), and people don’t get along as well as they could.*
It is crucial in every policy debate to first identify whether the contention is over surpluses. If it is, then the most important thing the state can do is foster an envoronment where the Ethic of Exchange can thrive, most likely by not intervening, except to offer to enforce contracts.
The second step is to examine whether one party or another is asking for a privilege, or is atempting to limit the rights of the other party. In this case either sort of appeal must be rejected.
Finally, Christians can neutralize Power-Over situations by adopting a Power-Under approach. If one party is being oppressed by another which is using Power-Over methods, the Christian can liberate the oppressed by taking their place, or volunteering to redeem them out of their oppression.
I think an examination of policy contentions may reveal the prevalance of fighting over surpluses, at least in America. Most often one Power-Over group will be contending with another Power-Over group over privileges to a particular surplus. We call this rent-seeking.**
Again, the relevant message to Christians is that we are not to join up with one or the other Power-Over groups (Progressives or Fundamentalists), but we are instead to find ways to employ the Power-Under ethic. Encouraging other parties to come to a voluntary exchange may be at least one way of exercising Power-Under principles. We don’t have to force the haves to give to the have-nots. We can bring the two together to find new ways to improve the quality of life for both.
Another application of this thought is that most arguments about the divergence of incomes are arguments over surplusses. The rich are getting richer faster than the poor are. But the poor are getting richer. Most of them have air-conditioning, clean water, latrines, and more than 1000 calories a day. They live better than their parents and grandparents did. These are surpluses.
We need to stop fighting over surpluses.
*I refer the reader to Greg Boyd and Stanley Hauerwas for elucidation of the Power-Over ethic.
** It may be important to note here that surpluses cannot be owned. There is no guarantee-able bundle of rights which includes the right to sell unrealized future surpluses. There is no guarantee for future stock prices.
The ARDA Survey, my results
I highly encourage all of you to go take this short survey. My results demonstrate how rare a bird I am. I would have liked to have some of the questions worded differently, but I doubt very many other people would recognize the significance in the changes I would make - least of all the creators of this survey. Specifically, when asked whether some things are wrong, I would like to clarify “for whom?”
Anyway, the results:
Basic Views |
My Answer | People Like Me w/ Same Answer* |
All Respondents w/ Same Answer |
| Attendance | Weekly or more | 34% | 32% |
| Prayer | A few times a week | 20% | 17% |
| Read Bible | Weekly or more | 29% | 28% |
| Bible | The Bible is perfectly true but not literal | 46% | 41% |
| Jesus | Jesus is the son of God | 79% | 74% |
* Male, 18-35 years old, college degree, Protestant
Religious Identity |
My Answer | People Like Me w/ Same Answer* |
All Respondents w/ Same Answer |
| Born Again | Yes | 51% | 26% |
| Bible-Believing | Yes | 66% | 45% |
| Charismatic | Yes | 17% | 6% |
| Theologically Conservative | No | 74% | 81% |
| Evangelical | No | 71% | 85% |
| Fundamentalist | No | 83% | 93% |
| Theologically Liberal | No | 74% | 84% |
| Mainline | No | 66% | 72% |
| Pentecostal | No | 94% | 95% |
| Seeker | No | 89% | 92% |
| Religious Right | No | 74% | 92% |
| Moral Majority | No | 89% | 90% |
* Male, 18-35 years old, college degree, Protestant
Religious Beliefs |
My Answer | People Like Me w/ Same Answer* |
All Respondents w/ Same Answer |
| God | Yes | 100% | 89% |
| Satan | Yes | 91% | 73% |
| Heaven | Yes | 94% | 82% |
| Hell | Yes | 86% | 71% |
| Purgatory | No | 65% | 59% |
| Angels | Yes | 86% | 80% |
| Demons | Yes | 79% | 66% |
| Armageddon | Yes | 85% | 55% |
| Rapture | No | 32% | 51% |
| Ghosts | No | 44% | 54% |
* Male, 18-35 years old, college degree, Protestant
Religious Experiences |
My Answer | People Like Me w/ Same Answer* |
All Respondents w/ Same Answer |
| I witnessed or experienced a miraculous, physical healing | No | 74% | 79% |
| I witnessed people speaking in tongues at a place of worship | Yes | 34% | 26% |
| I spoke in tongues at a place of worship | No | 94% | 94% |
| I personally had a vision of a religious figure while awake | No | 91% | 94% |
| I felt called by God to do something | Yes | 63% | 40% |
| I heard the voice of God speaking to me | No | 80% | 86% |
| I had a dream of religious significance | No | 60% | 78% |
| I changed profoundly as the result of a religious experience | Yes | 37% | 28% |
| I had a religious conversion experience | Yes | 31% | 26% |
* Male, 18-35 years old, college degree, Protestant
Conception of God |
My Answer | People Like Me w/ Same Answer* |
All Respondents w/ Same Answer |
| God–A cosmic force in the universe | Strongly Agree | 38% | 30% |
| God–Concerned with the well-being of the world | Strongly Agree | 49% | 49% |
| God–Concerned with my personal well-being | Strongly Agree | 51% | 45% |
| God–Angered by human sins | Strongly Agree | 17% | 29% |
| God–Angered by my sins | Strongly Agree | 17% | 25% |
| God–Directly involved in world affairs | Strongly Agree | 31% | 28% |
| God–Directly involved in my affairs | Strongly Agree | 31% | 31% |
| God–a He | Strongly Disagree | 14% | 17% |
* Male, 18-35 years old, college degree, Protestant
The Paranormal |
My Answer | People Like Me w/ Same Answer* |
All Respondents w/ Same Answer |
| Ancient advanced civilizations, such as Atlantis, once existed | Disagree | 43% | 18% |
| It is possible to influence the physical world through the mind alone | Strongly Disagree | 17% | 13% |
| Astrologers, palm-readers, tarot card readers, fortune tellers, and psychics can foresee the future | Agree | 9% | 10% |
| Astrology impacts one’s life and personality | Strongly Disagree | 46% | 35% |
| It is possible to communicate with the dead | Disagree | 40% | 30% |
| Places can be haunted | Agree | 49% | 31% |
| Dreams sometimes foretell the future or reveal hidden truths | Strongly Agree | 9% | 8% |
| Some UFOs are probably spaceships from other worlds | Strongly Disagree | 34% | 25% |
| Creatures such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster will one day be discovered by science | Strongly Disagree | 26% | 24% |
* Male, 18-35 years old, college degree, Protestant
Moral Views |
My Answer | People Like Me w/ Same Answer* |
All Respondents w/ Same Answer |
| Abortion–The baby may have a serious defect | always wrong | 44% | 26% |
| Abortion–The woman’s health is in danger | almost always wrong | 12% | 11% |
| Abortion–The pregnancy is the result of rape | always wrong | 30% | 22% |
| Abortion–The family cannot afford the child | always wrong | 62% | 52% |
| Abortion–The woman does not want the child | always wrong | 68% | 52% |
| Sex–Before marriage | always wrong | 40% | 32% |
| Sex–Between two adults of the same sex | always wrong | 63% | 53% |
| Sex–With someone other than the marriage partner | always wrong | 80% | 70% |
| The consumption of alcohol | not wrong at all | 49% | 42% |
| The viewing of pornography | almost always wrong | 26% | 16% |
| The use of marijuana | only wrong sometimes | 14% | 24% |
| Physician-assisted suicide | almost always wrong | 26% | 13% |
| Embryonic stem cell research | not wrong at all | 40% | 54% |
| War | always wrong | 3% | 19% |
* Male, 18-35 years old, college degree, Protestant
Worldview |
My Answer | People Like Me w/ Same Answer* |
All Respondents w/ Same Answer |
| Actively seek social and economic justice | Very important | 20% | 40% |
| Take care of the sick and needy | Very important | 43% | 65% |
| Teach others your morals | Very important | 24% | 24% |
| Convert others to your religious faith | Not at all important | 40% | 43% |
| Serve in the military | Somewhat Important | 20% | 31% |
| Consume or use fewer goods | Very important | 3% | 18% |
| God favors the United States in worldly affairs | Strongly Disagree | 45% | 43% |
| God favors one political party in the United States | Strongly Disagree | 56% | 57% |
* Male, 18-35 years old, college degree, Protestant
Next Page →
From the preacher’s point of view, such repetition is an easy way to get away with laziness. I heard so many sermons on the prodigal son at one church of my youth, that I groan inwardly whenever I discover I am about to hear one again. Unless, of course, the speaker directs us to consider ourselves the older brother. You have again refreshed me by encouraging me to empathize with the father.
The political message communicated by repetition is static. It says: This is where we are, and where we have been, and as far as we can tell, where we will be. The action required of the believer is continued penitence, and subjection to the father, and His representatives, the preacher, and the state…
The medium of repetition encourages stasis - lack of movement. Apathy.
Capitalism, as the best that unregenerate souls are capable of on their own, is just as easily derailed by stasis and apathy. Capitalism has as its aim the satisfaction of human wants by the most efficient means. When a man becomes apathetic he stops acting productively and becomes nothing but a, a, a consumer.
Capitalism works in such a way that in order for a person to become a consumer he has to act productively for others. But if a person can possibly get for themselves some privilege or entitlement to exact the production of others for themselves for nothing in return, well then its not capitalism any more.
But that the aim is empty - consumption as a satisfaction of spiritual wants - well, that’s the old evangelical reading of the prodigal story.
What seems to be true is that evangelicals, amongst others, are failing to move beyond stasis, to move past repentance, into action. The best they seem to achieve is empathy with the older brother. Hardly at all are we encouraged to live like the prodigal’s father.
Nathanael Snow
Ted Troxell 2 days ago
Thanks for allowing my thoughts to springboard your own, which I enjoyed. To push things a bit farther, is repentance without action really repentance? This is not to make people feel bad or take them on a guilt trip, but to point out the poverty of a evangelical milieu (of which I am a part) that does not move them past the “narrative transaction” and seems to equate salvation with simply feeling really good about being saved. The point is not that we suck (which is unremarkable), but that we’re being cheated.
I think we might have different assessments of capitalism. I don’t consider it to be the best of anything, nor do I recognize consumerism as an evil distinct from the system — capitalism — that gives rise to it. I would agree with McCarraher here: “Consumerism is not the problem—capitalism is. Consumerism is the work ethic of consumption, the transformation of leisure and pleasure into duties. Talking about consumerism is a way of not talking about capitalism, and I’ve come to think that that’s the reason why so many people, including Christians, whine about it so much. It’s just too easy a target.”
jurisnaturalist 2 days ago
I don’t know McCarraher, but I will follow the link and see what I think.
I can only defend Capitalism as “the best that unregenerate souls are capable of on their own” and limit the definition of Capitalism to “unlimited voluntary exchange.” I don’t know how a Christian can argue against unbelievers adopting this ethic of exchange. They are incapable - apart from grace - of anything better. What would you replace it with?
The more loaded definitions of Capitalism - those which are intended to protect some set of vested interests, or those which intend to incriminate one class or another - are not what I am interested in.
I am mostly concerned that the possibility of a pure form of Capitalism is being rejected based upon the mercantilist-empirialist system we now have which is wrongfully labeled “Capitalism.”
Nathanael Snow
jurisnaturalist 2 days ago
Ted Troxell 2 days ago
I’m not sure a pure form of capitalism exists — or, if it existed at one time it led to what we have now, and I don’t think it’s possible to go back. Whether it ever existed or not, to suggest that it would be better is, to me, a little like suggesting that riding a unicorn to work would be more environmentally friendly than driving my old truck; it’s true enough, but I’m not going to spend a lot of time trying to work it out.
Since I’m piling on the colorful (or just lame) analogies, I don’t fault you for taking an interest in the political and economic landscape of the world at large, and you’re correct in your intimation that I don’t have a ready substitute — but there’s an extent to which arguing global or national economics is like asking my opinion as to the best way to get to LA when I’m convinced that we simply don’t need to be going to LA in the first place (no offense to LA, I just picked it at random).
The only economic system that I can enthusiastically endorse is a gift economy (which might mean Paul and I agree on something) or some form of anarcho-communism. But these are not practicable on a national scale, and I think your recognition that whatever the ideal might be is not available to the unregenerate speaks to this (even if your concept of the “ideal” differs considerably). So pondering the most workable economic system for the world and coming up with some kind of pure capitalism is fair; I’m just not sure I buy it (pun shamelessly intended).
I picked on capitalism (as I understand it) in this piece not because it is the most heinous example of economic injustice imaginable but because it is our present economic environment, and it is unjust.
jurisnaturalist 2 days ago
Ted Troxell 2 days ago
Is that close? And let me be honest: I’m intrigued but I’m probably not going to get on board, at least partially because you seem to have a more reified sense of what regeneration means (I’m guessing a Reformed background?) among other things. I’m not convinced you can get Hauerwas and Buchanan in the same universe, but it might make an interesting book.
jurisnaturalist 2 days ago
Ted Troxell 2 days ago
The reason I guessed you as Reformed is because of the role regeneration plays in Calvinist theology, and the fact that the word doesn’t get used a ton outside those circles. Of course that doesn’t automatically make you a TULIP 5-pointer, but I was guessing it put you somewhere in the flower patch.
It probably won’t surprise you at this point that I’m more of a “social construction of reality” guy. I don’t draw a hard line between the power of the Holy Spirit to effect change in a person’s life and our formation in the habits of faith learned in community, which I submit is the normative means by which such power is made manifest. For some this is too bleak or reductionistic, and I understand that.
So I bristle at a phrase like “only Christians can do volitional good” because I don’t have a theological mechanism for locating the point at which someone goes from being incapable to capable of such good.
Now, I’m curious: when dealing with Christian anarchists, people love to bring up Romans 13. There are ways that the Christian radicalism with which I’m most familiar handles this, but the more robust of those ways are rendered unavailable by your “two anarchisms” rejoinder to “two kingdoms” theology. Can I ask how you handle that?
jurisnaturalist 1 day ago
I do accept most of TULIP. I also employ mostly modernist methods of discourse. And I bristle a bit at social construction of reality theories. I’ve also read too much Ayn Rand.
That is, I usually want to hold individuals accountable, and not communities. It seems very difficult to me to relocate the decision-making agency from the individual to the community.
However, I fully recognize that the whole is seldom the sum of the parts. This is actually the vanguard of the sort of macroeconomics being taught by Richard Wager at George Mason University, where I am. He’s a little late to the game, but he’s first among economists. The interactions among independent individuals combine to create macro movements which none of these agents intended. The cars in a traffic jam are all moving forward, while the traffic jam itself is moving backwards.
I do see salvation as a transforming moment in a person’s life. I see empowerment of the Holy Spirit as the invitation to join God in His continuing creative work. I see regeneration as a moment when the self-interested nature of fallen man can be cast off in favor of Christ-interestedness.
With Ayn Rand and other Objectivists I find it inconsistent with human nature for people to act charitably. Most charity is imposed by irresponsible people, or is a signaling of power to the recipients and those who observe the gifting. It is a manipulation, a power-over weapon. Society itself is an aberration, a power-over construct, a squelching of individuality and dignity.
But regenerate people are no longer solely self-interested. We are Christ-interested. We want to do what we see our Father doing, even as Jesus did. We want to have a sensitivity to the Spirit to know what He is doing. We want to say with Brother Lawrence that we don’t even bend to pick up a straw except for the love of God. We do nothing for reward or personal gain. We already have our reward, Christ is our reward! What more could we want? Our charity asks for nothing in return. It seeks no political advantage, favor, or position. We do it in response to the Spirit. We receive joy alone, the sensation of being used by Him, as our motivation.
Rand’s philosophy removes the right of anyone to make a claim on the life of anyone else. The wealthy have no obligation to the poor. The mother has no claim to her son’s produce. All social norms which imply such claims are evil. I’d have to agree that such claims are vehicles for powering-over others, even for the poor to power-over the wealthy.
As believers we first give up our rights to ourselves to Christ, in acknowledgment of His deity and in acceptance of his salvation. We remember this in communion. We then give up our rights to ourselves to the body – the church – and grant them the right to make claims on our life. This is the act of baptism, and the entry point to the community, the only legitimate collective on earth, because it renounces power-over and practices mutual power-under. Some marry and give our spouses the right to make claims on our lives. I count marriage among the sacraments for this reason.
I am resistant to the concept of habit formation in general because I prefer intense sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. Habit forming cannot tell you when not to help the sick person. Yet Jesus did not heal everyone. The goal is not to help and love people, but to love God (ah, here I am reformed again), and to glorify Him. God is sovereign over the suffering of His innocents. We don’t have to save them all. Yet we alone are empowered to save. It is a hard thought to know that some will not be saved.
Now, Romans 13. I often backpedal from anarchism at this point to a minarchism including courts which operate according to common law processes. God provided Israel with Judges and with a basic set of laws, out of which the people could count on protection of property and enforcement of contracts. He also established precedents and appeals processes.
So the authority wields the sword for justice. Some anarchists suggest the function of courts could be decentralized and subjected to market discipline. It may be possible. But I can accept a monopoly among courts.
Romans 13 is mostly telling the Christian that the method for practicing the gospel is not political rebellion. Pay your taxes – just don’t expect them to do any good.
Beyond this I recognize that the unbelievers will construct power-over institutions, despite our power-under attempts to dismantle them. We are to be subject to these institutions, recognizing God’s sovereignty, and to use interactions with these institutions as opportunities to demonstrate to peculiarity of the Christian Ethic. Where such institutions generate injustices were are to step in and offer ourselves as surrogates, or offer to redeem the innocent at our own expense. We are never to rebel. Again, the practice is to constantly push public opinion and policy at the margin in the direction of the ideal, never deceiving ourselves as to the possibility of achieving that ideal. It would be vanity if it were not purely service to Christ.
There is then, no justification for the formation of a movement. There are only individuals choosing to be in community, and to be responsive to the Spirit. There is complete decentralization of action, which God sovereignly directs to His macro-purpose. We are just to obey.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com
paul munn 1 day ago
And I mostly agree with your explanation of Romans 13, except I think the Judges were much more like prophets (sensitive to God’s wisdom and will, and chosen by God) than like our modern (elected) enforcers of state law. And then Jesus calls us to much more than the OT models, doesn’t he?
Your understanding of the church also seems quite accurate to me (have you seen what Kierkegaard wrote about it, such as this, or his words here?).
Ted Troxell 1 day ago
In a nutshell, you’re suggesting that Rand was right, at least as pertains to the world, and the only way out of Rand’s quasi-nihilistic maelstrom of competing self-interests is to have our interests changed through the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit. Since this will happen to a limited number of people, the answer for the rest is the mediation of a free market that allows for something like the “greater good” as an emergent property of the interplay of interests, along with a minimal legal apparatus that serves to protect the freedom of the market and wield the sword for the limited purposes suggested by Romans 13.
To sum up: for the elect, a new heart and a new spirit; for everyone else, the Invisible Hand.
What I find interesting here is that while other versions of Christian anarchism generally (and it is notoriously difficult to generalize radicalism, but those who study it can’t resist trying) recognize that a power-under society is not practicable in the world at large, and will only become universal in the eschaton, you are suggesting that some limited version of such a society is at least theoretically available to the world even if it is unlikely to be realized.
This would serve to function as a guidepost for involvement in the democratic process — as Greg Boyd puts it, they ask our opinion, we might as well give it — while retaining a realistic sense of what is possible in the world.
But this almost seems an extra step: if the church is a sign, a foretaste, and a herald of what God will bring about in the eschaton, and thus a testimony (however faltering) to an ideal, why a separate ideal for the world that is no more likely to be embraced by the powers that be? I can think of answers that would seem to be consistent with your reasoning, but I don’t want to presume.
jurisnaturalist 22 hours ago