Openness Enough | Church Year

Written by Douglas Wilson

Friday, 21 December 2012 09:35

The folks at CT were kind enough to reprint a section of God Rest Ye Merry, and it was the section that urges everyone -- in the name of Puritanism no less -- to go overboard for Christmas. Now I admit that there are ways of sinning in this, going over the port rail when it should have been starboard, and we must always be careful to guard our hearts. There are instances when, if a man comes prophesying fudge and spiced wines, he would be just the spokesman for this people (Micah 2:11).

That acknowledged, I ran across a riposte to my point, if not to my words, which retorted, "Jesus, in preparation for the Satanic temptation, feasted sumptuously for 40 days to prove He wasn't a gnostic." This is presumably leaning against the leaning against Advent as a penitential season. It contains a worthy point, deserving of a response.

So of course, the issue isn't fasting, but rather when and how. When Christ fasted in the wilderness, He was the incarnate God who was fasting, the walking refutation of all gnostic pipe dreams. His fasting, His ascetic discipline, was more world-affirming than that of any given gnostic theorist who ever peeled a grape. He created the world, and everything in it, and then He was born into it. All the disciplines He applied to His body just serve to remind us that He has a body.

So then, what are we to do with this? If we grant, as we must, that Christ was a fasting ninja, what impact should that have on us? Now if someone is really good at something, what should we do about it when it comes time for imitation? Well, we should do it the way He says! Jesus clearly knows how to fast properly, and if He tells us what we must not do when we try to follow Him, then we should take care to listen to Him. He says, in the first instance, that we are not to let others know what we are doing. We are not to put on a show (Matt. 6:16). We are not to post fasting updates on Facebook. He assumes that His followers will fast (Luke 5:35), but He makes a point to tell us how we must not do it.

What would we make of someone who pointed out that Jesus prayed all night, which He did (Luke 6:12), and concluded from this that we all need to pad more words into our prayers, and we really need to lengthen out our prayers in the synagogues? The problem would be how this collides with the instruction that was given to us by the person who knows how to pray so effectively (Matt. 6:7; Matt. 6:5).

Celebrations are public (John 2:1). Decorations, fudge, platters of ham, and toasts around the table are all appropriate in public (Dt. 14:26). Now fasting can be public if the president called the fast because of the Klingon invasion (Esther 4:3). But when it comes to the practice of personal piety, where the focus is on on-going, ritual discipline, Jesus commands us to keep it between ourselves and God. The Father who sees in secret will reward us openly, and that should be openness enough.

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites

Comments

Only registered users can write comments!

Whitney

Friday, December 21, 2012 11:26 am

I think my Christmas was just made merrier by the reference to Christ as a fasting ninja.

Matthew N. Petersen

Friday, December 21, 2012 12:33 pm

Two questions: Lewis talks about the meanings of "world" in Studies on Words which use of "world" are you using when you say "world" affirming?

Second,

Doug Wilson-kinda wrote:

So then, what are we to do with this? Should we have prayers in Church? If we grant, as we must, that Christ was a praying ninja, what impact should that have on us? Now if someone is really good at something, what should we do about it when it comes time for imitation? Well, we should do it the way He says! Jesus clearly knows how to pray properly, and if He tells us what we must not do when we try to follow Him, then we should take care to listen to Him. He says, in the first instance, that we are not to let others know what we are doing. We are not to put on a show (Matt. 6:5). We are not to post prayer updates on Facebook. He assumes that His followers will pray (Luke 11:2), but He makes a point to tell us how we must not do it.

Celebrations are public (John 2:1). Decorations, fudge, platters of ham, and toasts around the table are all appropriate in public (Dt. 14:26). But when it comes to the practice of personal piety, where the focus is on on-going, ritual discipline, Jesus commands us to keep it between ourselves and God. The Father who sees in secret will reward us openly, and that should be openness enough.

You don't quite come out fasts, just about posting about advent fasts on facebook, but you sound very close to attacking public penitential seasons. Is that your intention? Because if it is, it seems you need a little more sensitivity, since, as the above satire shows, the same exact arguments prove we shouldn't pray in Church.

Douglas Wilson

Friday, December 21, 2012 3:57 pm

Matt, I didn't have any distinctions Lewis made in mind, although they might line up. I simply meant created-matter-affirming.

On your second question, that is a reductio I would be willing to swallow. I do think that prayers in church are peculiarly vulnerable to the kind of showboating that Jesus forbids. So when we pray, the Lord's warnings should be in the forefront of our minds.

Matthew N. Petersen

Friday, December 21, 2012 10:43 pm

Ok.

Regarding the first, I know it's a linguistic book, but it seems Lewis actually makes some important points about the different meanings of "world" that are important for the discussion about fasting. (Though I'm out of town and cannot look up the passage I have in mind.)

On the one hand, one could fast, saying that the body is an instrument God gave us, and one of its purposes is to aid in prayer through fasting, thus affirming the body by fasting.

But one could also, without being gnostic, (and this is where Lewis comes in) draw a distinction between the world as created, and the world as fallen. We must be very careful that our creation affirming activities are not in fact falling perishing creation affirming activities--that we aren't laying up sensuous treasures that old age and death will destroy, rather than longing for the Resurrection.

But based on that distinction, one could very easily say, and many Christians through history have said, that the body and matter are created good, but our current bodies, and our current material surroundings are, in our fallen state, distractions--that because of fallen matter we need times of longing for the Return of Jesus, the Resurrection, and the healing of the fall--and perhaps even should always be fasting from our dying world.

But this position I have sketched is the reason Christians fast. And though this position may be mistaken, and though in the extreme it definitely is, it surely isn't a gnostic denial of creation, but rather a Christian assertion of the fall.

For that reason, "gnostic" language bothers me, since it sounds awfully close to slander of our fathers in the faith. And, as I said above, it seems "gnostic" is only justified by a vague use of "world" that does not properly distinguish between creation, and the fallen, decaying, dying cosmos we have now. It also sounds like dangerously vague reasoning.

Regarding the second point: But you wouldn't lean against prayers in Church--indeed, to do so, is to lean against Church, since everything, from singing hymns, to praying the Lord's Prayer, should be prayerful. But you say yourself that you are leaning against advent as a penitential season. To restrict prayers in Church to individual prayers before the Church (as you seem to be doing), is to miss the force of the reductio, and then only to say that the Lord's warnings should be in the forefront of our minds, is to move the goal posts.

When we keep penitential seasons like advent or lent, the Lord's warnings should be in the forefront of our minds.

(Indeed, I now have a third question: If you want to push back against penitential seasons, why don't you swallow the reductio, and push back against unscripted prayers in Church, arguing instead for something like the Book of Common Prayer, where there are really no prayers before the Church, except ones Cramner wrote about the time Shakespeare was born?)

Douglas Wilson

Saturday, December 22, 2012 8:03 am

Matt, Chesterton somewhere makes the same distinction between the world-affirming asceticism found in Christianity, and the world-denying form of found in, say, Hinduism, and it is a distinction I accept, with this caveat. Among the Christians there will be a constant temptation to veer off into the other kind, and when it veers off it will be a form of religiosity that lies deep in the bones of the natural man, and is one of the features of this fallen world most in need of mortification.

Jonathan

Saturday, December 22, 2012 8:46 am

I think I agree quite strongly with the general thought of the CT article and this post as well. However, I wonder whether the intended audience who needs to hear this message is a small one. In my experience, consumerism is a far greater issue during the Christmas season than asceticism. There is an enjoyment of things that enhances life, and there is an infatuation, covetousness, and selfishness towards things that kills the spirit. Considering how many of the world's things that Americans have (often at the expense of others), you'd think we'd be far happier people if we were practicing the first of those rather than the second.

katecho

Saturday, December 22, 2012 11:00 am

I agree that consumerism is a big problem this time of year, without question, but I think there is a growing number of Christians who believe the solution to consumerism is to jump over the port rail into asceticism. Turning up the penitential heat isn't the solution. Guilt isn't the answer to consumerism. One could even argue that moralism is more damaging than consumerism because those who indulge in fudge and online shopping are not consciously trying to make a theological point, rather at worst they have simply lost the point of the season altogether. Consumerism is the Christmas autopilot that Doug referred to in another recent post. However ascetic moralism wraps itself with the flag of "thus saith the Lord!", explicitly pronouncing "what Jesus would do", as a conscious theological argument. There are many ditches there, including pride, division of the body, and not least, misrepresenting "what Jesus would actually do".
The answer to consumerism is much simpler and more direct. The solution is to remember God explicitly in our celebrating--to be explicitly thankful for God's abundant material blessings. When God brought His people out of bondage in Egypt, it didn't matter how the people of Canaan were behaving in their celebrations. God didn't require His people to sit in dust and ashes to counteract the materialism of the Canaanites or the Egyptians. Rather God required elaborate feasting! Rich celebration and fellowship, with God as the deliberate focus, defeats a checked-out, numbing consumerism.

Jonathan

Sunday, December 23, 2012 9:14 am

Really, who are these people practicing ascetic moralism in America? I believe they exist, but they must be few and far between, because I've never met a Christian American (other than monks) practicing anything remotely like asceticism.

I strongly agree that rich celebration and fellowship are the alternative to consumerism. But I think in many cases they are an alternative to the stuff, not a justification for it. When Jesus offered an alternative to materialism, he frequently advocated that those addicted to things get rid of the stuff, not just appreciate it more. If you've been doing it for the wrong reasons, then the right reasons won't likely lead to the same decisions.

Matthew N. Petersen

Sunday, December 23, 2012 12:45 pm

They why do you lean against the thing, and not against the abuse of the thing?

Also, I agree celebrations are good. But I know from music that the way to have a big forte is to precede it with a piano. If you try to put forte on forte, you just sound strained. Shouldn't we expect the same to be true here?

Also, it sounds like you're leaning against Lent. But Advent isn't Lent. If someone celebrates Advent by meditating on guilt, they aren't even celebrating Advent. Advent is about longing for the coming of Christ. "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel." Is the prototypical Advent song.

katecho

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 1:04 am

Jonathan wrote earlier:

Quote:

Considering how many of the world's things that Americans have (often at the expense of others)

There may not be many flagellum-carrying ascetics in America, but there is a growing number (now including many Christians) who feel that the material blessings of America are at the "expense of others". In other words, the feeling is that Americans should be guilty. Guilt is the prescription for having been wealthy. Shame on us.

It has been argued persuasively that this very principle of American guilt is what lies behind Obama's policies. White-guilt has mutated into wealth-guilt. "Tax the guilty rich!", etc, etc.

So in this atmosphere, a full-blown celebration of Christmas (regardless of motives) is viewed as highly inappropriate. "How dare we eat fudge on Christmas when there are children starving somewhere." This sort of humbug and guilt manipulation is not isolated to a few, it is becoming trendy. Climate-guilt may have already peaked though.

The theme is that we are supposed to be guilty. The guiltier we are made to feel, the less likely we are to object to the civil abuses that are on the drawing board.

In Christ, repentance from actual sins frees us from guilt and condemnation. Such freed men are dangerous to certain philosophies.

Jonathan - re:

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:19 pm

katecho wrote:

There's a huge gulf between asceticism and the consumption level of America, with lots of room in the middle. And, as I think Doug would note, with lots of room to recognize that it isn't just a linear spectrum, but there are ways of celebrating extravagantly that are much more focused on fellowship and celebration than on quantity of stuff. It should be impossible to deny (yet some still do) that America's material wealth IS at the expense of others. We use approximately 1/3 of the world's non-renewable resources, though we are only 5% of its population. Look at the lives of the people who procure those resources for us. There are numerous ways in which we work to maintain and enhance our wealth by pursuing policies that make it difficult for others to acquire similar wealth (overexploitation of resources, restrictive tariffs, depression of wages for poor producers, subsidization of our own rich producers, lack of development assistance in sectors that compete with our own, supplying of arms that further conflicts in other nation, the alignment and support of dictators who repress their own people, etc.). If you are interested in any reading material on the subject, then I could suggest some. There's lots of it out there on all of those subjects. Of course, if you believe that for an author to take any of those positions then makes them a "liberal" that you would automatically dismiss, then no amount of reading suggestions would help you.

The latest study I saw showed that it takes approximately 9 acres of land to support the average American. That takes into account the agriculture, trees, mining, and drilling that are needed to produce the goods that an American consumes in one year, along with landfill space, their share of recreation space, and actual living space. Multiply that 9 acres by the world's population, and you get a number several times larger than the total landmass of the Earth. The forests don't exist to keep producing the wood and paper we use at a similar rate for the whole world. The arable land doesn't exist to feed everyone the food we consume. The world fisheries don't exist to feed everyone the ocean produce we consume. If the 5% of us are using 30-35% of the world's minerals (and oil) each year, then obviously the other 95% is only going to have 65% or so total, so they're making due with a tenth of what we use per person. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that those mines and wells will eventually run out. Yes, our material goods are at the expense of the rest of the world. It's time to realize that God's goodness is found much more fully in things other than pure material consumerism, and that there is far more than enough stuff in the world for everyone to enjoy a very full life, while using far less than we use today and being far more open to others getting some of it.

katecho wrote:

It has been argued persuasively that this very principle of American guilt is what lies behind Obama's policies. White-guilt has mutated into wealth-guilt. "Tax the guilty rich!", etc, etc.

Really? Where are these persuasive arguments? It's hard to see how that's true, since the rich have done quite well under Obama since the recession bottomed out, while the poor have seen hardly any gains outside of health care. Obama didn't tax the rich heavily in his first term and is only now fighting for a small increase. Even if Obama got the full tax increase on the rich he asks for, we still wouldn't be anywhere near the levels the rich were taxed during Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, or even most of Reagan's administration. So how did thy manage it?

katecho wrote:

So in this atmosphere, a full-blown celebration of Christmas (regardless of motives) is viewed as highly inappropriate. "How dare we eat fudge on Christmas when there are children starving somewhere." This sort of humbug and guilt manipulation is not isolated to a few, it is becoming trendy.

Children don't starve because we eat fudge. But yeah, children definitely starve because of food policies meant to keep us rich. The book Enough (http://enoughthebook.com/) covered a number of the issues involved, and honestly just barely scratched the surface of what's there.

katecho wrote:

In Christ, repentance from actual sins frees us from guilt and condemnation. Such freed men are dangerous to certain philosophies.

Like materialism. Like conspicuous consumption. Like idolatrous nationalism at the expense of others.

Such freed men may even, in fact, chose to sell the extra things they have and lay the money at the feet of others so that there will no longer be any poor among them.

katecho

Thursday, December 27, 2012 9:57 pm

This is a nice break, since usually it is the Reformed Christian who is painted as the bad guy for bringing up the topic of man's depravity and guilt before God. Of course in that case Reformed folks are talking about actual sins and actual guilt, broadly considered, rather than the flavor-of-the-week guilt-trips that are being used to justify bad policy and social manipulation lately.

Zero-sum egalitarian idealism seems to be a driving factor in Jonathan's reasoning. He wrote:

Quote:

Multiply that 9 acres by the world's population, and you get a number several times larger than the total landmass of the Earth. The forests don't exist to keep producing the wood and paper we use at a similar rate for the whole world. The arable land doesn't exist to feed everyone the food we consume.

Jonathan didn't give a citation for his report, and I couldn't find the number he gave. Most of the ecological footprint reports I found gave much higher numbers (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint and http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/living_planet_report_timeline/lpr02/) They claim an average American needs more like 20 to 24 acres, rather than just 9. What this shows is that the metrics and definitions are not consistent at all. What Jonathan needed to give was some sort of relative comparison to help us see how we compare with other nations. If the world average is somewhere around 3 or 4 hectares, and Americans require 8 to 10 hectares then this doesn't seem to be an egregious disparity given that there are always distinctions of wealth and blessing among peoples.

What if God has historically blessed some cultures more than others? Should we despise such material blessings because they aren't evenly distributed to all? That would seem highly ungrateful, particularly if they are renewable blessings, like electricity, vehicle fuel, and tri-tip.

If Jonathan wants to argue that Americans should feel pangs of guilt for being at the upper end of this distribution, then he would need to show that the disparity is egregious. He hasn't done that. Jonathan would also need to show that Americans are insensitive and callous toward poorer countries. He hasn't shown that either. The US alone is currently responsible for almost 23% of economic aid to the world. One could argue about the efficiency and long term market effects of it, but in fact the US also does more than any other nation with regard to food aid. As recent as 2006, the US alone provided 49% of the world's food aid. Are you Americans feeling guilty yet?

If it weren't for misguided climate-guilt, the US might not have enacted policies to subsidize ethanol production at the expense of export food production. There are shortages and/or higher global food prices as a result. Now who's feeling guilty?

Perhaps Jonathan is really a Malthusian, postulating an inevitable future with 100s of billions of people stacked 20 deep covering every square inch of the earth with nothing to consume but each other. This is a different kind of argument. How would such a vision help me decide what to consume today? Should I deny myself in anticipation of the doomsday prediction? Would it actually help if I did so, or would it just delay the inevitable? I consider my consumption to be quite reasonable and harmless at an individual level. I like to be a good steward and I'm not carelessly wasteful. Assuming Jonathan believes God is still in control and hasn't lost His mind, why should we feel guilty at an individual or national level about responsibly consuming what God has delivered to our door today? God is the one who wanted the earth to be filled, and I suspect He had some kind of plan to make provision for us as that goal approached. Energy resources are interestingly providential when you think about it.

Rather than an exponential crisis, we seem to be seeing a cooling off of population growth. About half of the nations have total fertility rates at or below sustaining levels.

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

If the 5% of us are using 30-35% of the world's minerals (and oil) each year, then obviously the other 95% is only going to have 65% or so total, so they're making due with a tenth of what we use per person.

If there is anything Jonathan has demonstrated, it is that he can't be trusted with statistics. US consumption of world oil production is at 20% and falling (because of rising Asian consumption), and this is significantly explained because the US is producing a lot of goods for the world. I.e. the world, not just US citizenry, is consuming the products and services that required this oil and raw material to deliver. As of 2012, the US has been ranked 22nd nationally in oil consumption per capita. So Jonathan is naive to suggest that the world is "making due" with a tenth of what Americans use. The world is also making due with what the US produces.

Apparently Jonathan is not very self-conscious about layering on the presumption of guilt:

Quote:

Yes, our material goods are at the expense of the rest of the world. It's time to realize that God's goodness is found much more fully in things other than pure material consumerism, and that there is far more than enough stuff in the world for everyone to enjoy a very full life, while using far less than we use today and being far more open to others getting some of it.

Jonathan has not begun to show that Americans are a pack of rabid nationalists, closed to other nations coming up in the world. Contrary to Jonathan's analysis, American corporate globalism has contributed to many US jobs being exported, which, along with other factors, has caused a trend of increasing (not decreasing) global wage equality. Wages in developed countries are stagnant or dropping, while wages in some Asian and Eastern European countries have been doubling annually for several years.

(sarcasm)
It takes a lot of energy and resources to build computers, internet, and cell phone infrastructure. Much of the world doesn't get to enjoy these toys. It's time for Jonathan to realize that God's goodness is found much more fully in things other than pure material consumerism. I assume he has already turned down his heat, unplugged his refrigerator, and has sold his car for a bicycle, but it seems he is still using his computer to make posts here on Doug's blog. Unless he is using a community library computer it's time for him to unplug and stop taking resources out of the mouths of other unfortunate souls.
(/sarcasm)

Or maybe we can all focus on real sins and repent of those instead.

katecho

Thursday, December 27, 2012 9:57 pm

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

katecho wrote:

Quote:

It has been argued persuasively that this very principle of American guilt is what lies behind Obama's policies. White-guilt has mutated into wealth-guilt. "Tax the guilty rich!", etc, etc.

I was mainly thinking of Dinesh D'Souza's bestseller, 2016: Obama's America. That cat is all the way out of the bag by now. Obama's friends and associates growing up were of the anti-colonial, full blown socialist, "G*d d@mn America!" crowd. It's old news. Even Michelle Obama has tipped her hand now and again. Obama's policies seem to be of the sort that doesn't really mind a good fiscal cliff.

Regarding taxation, my point wasn't about absolute historic rate levels, but about the guilt that is being heaped on the rich to justify the increases. It has reached the point of being shameless. Such class warfare wasn't the motivation under Eisenhower, or Carter, or Reagan.

katecho

Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:07 pm

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

Such freed men may even, in fact, chose to sell the extra things they have and lay the money at the feet of others so that there will no longer be any poor among them.

Certainly freed men may choose to be generous. I just object to the guilt trip manipulation over invented sins. Having extra things is not an inherent sin, for example.

We also need to avoid a kind of sentimental, bleeding-heart idealism that I see coming from Jonathan.

"For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish, you can do them good; but you do not always have Me." -- Mark 14:7

That verse affirms a robust charity, and simultaneously corrects against idealism.

Jonathan - re:

Friday, December 28, 2012 10:23 am

Katecho, this is a discussion, not a performance. There are very few people looking at week-old threads which they aren't commenting on, and fewer still who will change their minds based on those threads. So the best case scenario for us is that I will learn something from you, and you will learn something from me. If we speak to each other respectfully and directly, with an honest desire to learn, there is a greater chance of both of those things happening.

I have a ton to say. But if you don't read anything else, remember this. If you see your brother in need, and you have the goods of the world, and you don't help your brother, then how could the love of God be in you? I think that what I mean by quoting that statement should only be considered in the context of everything else I say, but we must remember that John made that statement quite directly, and we should seriously consider why he said it and how it fits into everything else he said, the rest of the Bible (especially the New Testament), and what we're discussing here.

katecho wrote:

I don't aim for guilt-trips. My aim is that we bring each other closer to the Kingdom of God. I don't live with guilt, not because of my lifestyle, but because of God's grace on me. But I will continually seek after greater holiness, greater love of God, and greater love for my neighbor, even though I know I already have God's grace, because God's love inspires me to that love and holiness.

katecho wrote:

Zero-sum egalitarian idealism seems to be a driving factor in Jonathan's reasoning.

I actually don't believe in zero-sum idealism. I think that we should consider others better than ourselves, be servants of all, seek the last place, and desire to give to others even more than we take ourselves. And I think that the more we bless others, the more we will be blessed. But while there are many physical blessings which are fantastic and from God, I don't believe that pure materialism/consumerism is the ideal blessing that we're looking for. I don't think you can measure how blessed you are by how much stuff you have - otherwise, wouldn't the people of Dubai be the most blessed by God?

katecho wrote:

Actually, all it shows is that I accidentally said "acre" instead of "hectare". 9 hectares is about 22 acres, so our numbers agree quite well. That makes the metrics and definitions look quite consistent indeed.

I hope that since my error actually downplayed the total land use by Americans, you'll realize that it was an honest mistake and see that I'm not purposefully distorting any number.

katecho wrote:

What Jonathan needed to give was some sort of relative comparison to help us see how we compare with other nations. If the world average is somewhere around 3 or 4 hectares, and Americans require 8 to 10 hectares then this doesn't seem to be an egregious disparity given that there are always distinctions of wealth and blessing among peoples.

Katecho, all I have to give you is the total land area of the world and you'll already see that there's a massive issue. The entire land area of the world is slightly more than 14 billion hectares. So even if every square inch of land area was utilized by humans, there'd still only be 2 hectares/person to go around. When you consider that huge tracts of land can't be utilized (Antarctica alone is 1.4 billion hectares), then you see that we only have around 1 hectare of utilizable land per person. And that's assuming that EVERY bit of utilizable land is used (leaving nothing for wilderness), and that the population doesn't grow at all (obviously a false assumption).

I state that number because many Americans express an honest desire that everyone be lifted up to the same living standard as us. Unfortunately, that's not remotely possible. The rest of the world can't live at our standard, or even half our standard, or even a quarter of our standard, because the available resources aren't even physically there.

katecho wrote:

What if God has historically blessed some cultures more than others? Should we despise such material blessings because they aren't evenly distributed to all? That would seem highly ungrateful, particularly if they are renewable blessings, like electricity, vehicle fuel, and tri-tip.

You are making the false assumption that all material things are from God. There are many ways to acquire material things, and many of them clearly do not have God's blessing. But when God does bless us with material things, I believe that one of our primary responses should be to use them to bless others. That appears to be a frequent refrain in the Bible, especially the New Testament. I don't believe that failing to hoard material things shows that you despise God's blessing.

katecho wrote:

If Jonathan wants to argue that Americans should feel pangs of guilt for being at the upper end of this distribution, then he would need to show that the disparity is egregious. He hasn't done that.

I don't think we should feel pangs of guilt. I believe that we should desire that others aren't in need, both of spiritual and physical things, and do what we can to love them.

And yes, the disparity is egregious. As I showed, Americans are using 5 to 10 times the per-person land area that is even possible for the whole world to use. We don't actually use the absolute most - there are a few small wealthy European and Arab countries that have just a big a per-person footprint. Of course, none of them have more than 10.5 million people, so our use is still far more significant to the rest of the world. And the fact that a few other countries are using resources at an equally unsustainable rate doesn't make our overuse a good thing.

katecho wrote:

Jonathan would also need to show that Americans are insensitive and callous toward poorer countries.

Wait, why would I need to show that? If we are being insensitive and callous, then that certainly makes it worse, but couldn't plain ignorance or misunderstanding be the reason behind the issue?

katecho wrote:

The US alone is currently responsible for almost 23% of economic aid to the world. One could argue about the efficiency and long term market effects of it, but in fact the US also does more than any other nation with regard to food aid. As recent as 2006, the US alone provided 49% of the world's food aid. Are you Americans feeling guilty yet?

Please read "When Helping Hurts". Please read "Enough". The aid we provide is a tiny proportion of our own GDP (I believe the most recent year was around 0.15%), a large proportion of it is given in order to further our own interests (and done so openly), and a lot of it, especially the food aid, is given in such a way that actually hurts the poor in other countries in many ways. Giving a small proportion of our surplus in targeted ways that ensure we maintain our own advantages only cements the need and suffering that occurs in other countries. There is a place for economic aid and food aid. But it is often given in such a manner that ensures that those giving the aid stay far richer than those they are aiding. There are far better ways to help the poor in other countries - ending our overexploitation of their resources, eliminating restrictive tariffs, paying living wages for poor producers, ending the subsidization of our own rich producers, giving development assistance even in sectors that compete with our own, ending the supplying of arms that further conflicts in other nations, ending support for dictators who repress their own people, etc. However, many of those measures could reduce our own power and material consumption, so it can be more sacrificial to enact them. Or, it might be considered sacrificial to those for whom worldly power and material wealth are the greatest goods. For others, it might actually be seen as a great gain.

katecho wrote:

If it weren't for misguided climate-guilt, the US might not have enacted policies to subsidize ethanol production at the expense of export food production. There are shortages and/or higher global food prices as a result. Now who's feeling guilty?

Ethanol subsidization, just like other agricultural subsidization, has been primarily motivated by political considerations, not good science. I agree that it appears to be bad science, and that all such agricultural subsidies increase the wealth of rich Americans at the cost of the poor, and should be ended.

katecho wrote:

Perhaps Jonathan is really a Malthusian, postulating an inevitable future with 100s of billions of people stacked 20 deep covering every square inch of the earth with nothing to consume but each other. This is a different kind of argument. How would such a vision help me decide what to consume today? Should I deny myself in anticipation of the doomsday prediction? Would it actually help if I did so, or would it just delay the inevitable?

I would think that every single sentence that I've said proves I'm not a Malthusian. But we don't need any doomsday predictions. The current level of use is already obviously unsustainable, even if economic levels don't increase and population doesn't increase. However, population is clearly still increasing, and I think that any Christian should desire a significant rise in economic standard of living for the billions who suffer in poverty. Since both the rising population and the rise in standard of living for the poor will require even more resources than we're currently using, and we're already using more than we can sustain, something obviously has to give.

katecho wrote:

I consider my consumption to be quite reasonable and harmless at an individual level.

Do you have the goods of the world? Are there brothers in need? Do you have the ability to help your brothers in need? So why not do it? DON'T do it out of guilt. Do it out of love. Do it out of humility. Do it out of a desire to serve.

katecho wrote:

US consumption of world oil production is at 20% and falling (because of rising Asian consumption), and this is significantly explained because the US is producing a lot of goods for the world. I.e. the world, not just US citizenry, is consuming the products and services that required this oil and raw material to deliver. As of 2012, the US has been ranked 22nd nationally in oil consumption per capita. So Jonathan is naive to suggest that the world is "making due" with a tenth of what Americans use. The world is also making due with what the US produces.

You're right, the USA has a lower number for oil now (about 21% for fossil fuel overall) due to the rise in Chinese use especially. But your one argument works against you - most of the declining USA manufacturing sector is for domestic consumption, while a far higher % of the Chinese manufacturing sector (and manufacturing in other poor nations) is for export, especially export to the USA! We have by far the biggest trade imbalance in the world, now approaching a TRILLION dollars a year, even considering that our goods cost far more due to much higher labor costs (so the "resource imbalance" would be even greater). We import far more things than we export. So all we've done is outsource the manufacture and energy use, but we're still the ones consuming the goods! That's the complete opposite of what you claimed was happening.

katecho wrote:

It's time for Jonathan to realize that God's goodness is found much more fully in things other than pure material consumerism. I assume he has already turned down his heat, unplugged his refrigerator, and has sold his car for a bicycle, but it seems he is still using his computer to make posts here on Doug's blog. Unless he is using a community library computer it's time for him to unplug and stop taking resources out of the mouths of other unfortunate souls.
(/sarcasm)

To tell you the truth, I don't have any heating, refrigerator, or car. The list of other things that we have had to go without in order to love our neighbors here is extensive and completely irrelevant. While showing you how I actually live might demonstrate my own integrity and lack of hypocrisy in this matter, it doesn't actually make the logic of my arguments any better. I don't like mentioning those aspects of my personal life here, so I'm glad it's buried where no one other than you is likely to read it. But perhaps you'll consider my argument differently and stop using such sarcasm. Yes, my family lives with very little, closer to the average Bangladeshi than the average American. We do this not out of guilt or self-righteousness, but because loving the people we are choosing to love is not really possible any other way. We desire deeply for our neighbors, who are among the billions who live in poverty, to share in both the spiritual and physical blessings that we have received. We feel that we can do that best by actually being their neighbor, and so we've had to give up a lot.

Yes, my wife and I do share one small laptop that accesses the internet via a cell phone lines. We also, for what it's worth, share a cell phone. Our work would not be possible without those concessions. I do believe that the poor of the world can be greatly served by the education and connections available through computers and internet infrastructure. I don't believe that the massive US overcomsumption of electronics is justified by that.

Jonathan - re:

Friday, December 28, 2012 10:46 am

katecho wrote:

I assume you meant D'Souza's bestseller, The Roots of Obama's Rage? 2016 was the movie he made off of the book.

As far as the book being persuasive, I would say otherwise. Here are a few statements from conservative reviewers:

"Dinesh D’Souza has authored what may possibly be the most ridiculous piece of Obama analysis yet written." - Daniel Larison in The American Conservative

"Readers will not be shocked that D’Souza’s paradigm easily passes D’Souza’s test, thanks to the author’s misstatements of fact, leaps in logic, and pointlessly elaborate argumentation. The misstatements range from the very small to the very large....
And where facts are missing altogether, faulty reasoning bolsters the case." -
Andrew Ferguson in the Weekly Standard review he titled "The Roots of Lunacy".

"I believe that I do understand Barack Obama better having read this book, but it’s very hard to give D’Souza a pass for the sloppy arguments, poor reasoning, factual errors, and egregiously inflammatory tone of the book.
D’Souza could have written a thoughtful, serious, respectful book. It would have been better received by conservatives, and harder to dismiss by Obama’s defenders. Instead, he chose to sprinkle the book with trash talk, racially hostile nicknames, and a lot of sophomoric innuendo." - Johnny Lathrop in America's Right.

"And if you really wanted to know about Obama’s background, the place to start would not be an apocalyptic reading of inconsequential and half-true stories from his presidency or poignant memories of his youth taken from his autobiographies — that way lies madness." - Joseph Lawler in The American Spectator

"In sum, D’Souza’s thesis isn’t racist or bigoted. But, like many of his other recent writings, it is poorly reasoned and unsupported by evidence" - Ilya Somin in The Volokh Conspiracy

If D'Souza is so roundly mocked even by conservatives who already strongly disagree with Obama, what makes you think that his arguments are so persuasive?

katecho

Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:34 pm

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

If D'Souza is so roundly mocked even by conservatives who already strongly disagree with Obama, what makes you think that his arguments are so persuasive?

Round mockery is a good description for it. But there was no shred of supporting counterargument in any of Jonathan's quotes.

Obviously we can't peer inside Obama's thoughts to see what makes him tick (Obama may not even be conscious of all of his motives), but strong clues of his driving philosophy, based on his historic actions and associations, are out in the open, and not so easily brushed away.

D'Souza isn't the only one to have presented a theory about Obama's core motivating principles, but he does line up the major evidences in a good reference summary. As I mentioned, the cat has been out of the bag for awhile. Obama has run with the "hate America" crowd for a long time. I don't see how this is even debatable. All that might be debatable is the motivation behind it, but D'Souza seems close to the mark.

Jonathan - re:

Friday, December 28, 2012 11:17 am

katecho wrote:

Certainly freed men may choose to be generous. I just object to the guilt trip manipulation over invented sins. Having extra things is not an inherent sin, for example.

I'll say that seeing your brother in need, while you have those extra things, and using your extra things to fulfill his need is an act of love. Keeping the extra things, while your brother is still in need, may show a lack of that love.

I have not used the sin language that you keep putting in my mouth - that's for you do decide. For me, the relevant question is, "If I love Christ and want to follow him, what will I do?" I've never been interested in the guilt-based mentality of trying to define sin as narrowly as possible so that I could get away with as much as possible without sinning. I'd rather live the holiest, fullest life that Christ intends for me.

katecho wrote:

We also need to avoid a kind of sentimental, bleeding-heart idealism that I see coming from Jonathan.

I believe that we should love our neighbor as ourselves. I believe that when we have the goods of the world, and see our brother in need, we should share those goods to assist our brother. I believe that if we do not assist our destitute brother or sister, then our faith is a dead one. I believe that covetousness/greediness/desire for gain really are condemned by Jesus and Paul. I believe that we should not add house to house and field to field while the poor stay poor. I believe that we should not store up treasures on earth for ourselves. I believe that our lives do not consist in the abundance of things. I believe that true love is shown by giving up our lives for others. I believe that we should sell our possessions, give to the poor, and pursue moneybags that do not grow old. I believe we should be inviting poor people to our feasts, rather than our rich friends who will pay us back in kind. I believe we should feed the hungry, quench the thirsty, take in the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned, and ask serious questions of ourselves if we have the capacity to do any of those things and are not. I believe it is more blessed to give than to receive. I believe that Paul meant something when he said that he who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack. I believe that the Acts community was in the right when all who possessed lands or houses sold them and laid their extra things at the feet of the disciples to the point that there was no longer any poor among them.

I believe that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. I believe everything James has to say about the rich in his letter.

And I believe I got all of those beliefs from Jesus and his disciples. If you find them to be sentimental, bleeding-heart idealism, then God wants us to be sentimental, bleeding-heart idealists.

katecho wrote:

For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish, you can do them good; but you do not always have Me.-- Mark 14:7

That verse affirms a robust charity, and simultaneously corrects against idealism.

Huh? Jesus clearly says that his disciples will always have the poor with them. So, do you? If you want to use this verse, which makes clear that Jesus's disciples are expected to have the poor with them and give to the poor in perpetuity, to somehow counter all the very clear verses I just quoted to you, then I believe you have a very weak argument.

I don't believe that poverty will be ended until God's Kingdom comes in full. But I believe we should keep assisting our brothers in need continuously until that happens.

katecho

Saturday, December 29, 2012 10:59 am

Jonathan objects:

Quote:

I don't aim for guilt-trips.

Oh really? Why do I find this claim so difficult to accept?

Jonathan apparently forgot all this that he wrote:

Quote:

America's material wealth IS at the expense of others.
...
There are numerous ways in which we work to maintain and enhance our wealth by pursuing policies that make it difficult for others to acquire similar wealth (overexploitation of resources, restrictive tariffs, depression of wages for poor producers, subsidization of our own rich producers, lack of development assistance in sectors that compete with our own, supplying of arms that further conflicts in other nation, the alignment and support of dictators who repress their own people, etc.).
...
Yes, our material goods are at the expense of the rest of the world.
...
Children don't starve because we eat fudge. But yeah, children definitely starve because of food policies meant to keep us rich.
...
Like materialism. Like conspicuous consumption. Like idolatrous nationalism at the expense of others.
...
the food aid, is given in such a way that actually hurts the poor in other countries in many ways. Giving a small proportion of our surplus in targeted ways that ensure we maintain our own advantages only cements the need and suffering that occurs in other countries.

That's right, I didn't think I just made it up. In spite of his amazing ability to protest the obvious, Jonathan has been layering the guilt trip on America, and the successful in America, in almost every single one of his posts on the topic.

katecho

Saturday, December 29, 2012 11:12 am

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

I actually don't believe in zero-sum idealism.

Perhaps Jonathan doesn't understand what an idealistic zero sum argument looks like. Let's try an example:

Quote:

Notice how the math adds up in perfect idealistic tidiness. See how a bigger piece of the pie in one column requires a smaller piece of pie in the other column. Does Jonathan not recognize his own arguments?

I think Jonathan protests too much.

Jonathan - re:

Saturday, December 29, 2012 11:50 am

Katecho, there are some quite substantial arguments to be had in everything that was just discussed. Why did you only reply regarding two semantic questions about my personal intentions? Those seem to be about the least important things you could talk about.

As I said before, this is a discussion, not a performance. No one is going to come closer to the truth about what they should do with their lives based on an argument about whether my words are a "guilt-trip" or not, or whether I believe in "zero-sum idealism" or not. As I already said, I'd much rather focus on the substance of the discussion than on the personalities of the discussers. And why, exactly, are you referring to me in the third person?

As far as your semantic claims, you are making interpretations about my ethical/moral intentions based off of facts that I stated. You can argue whether or not my facts are correct, but they are still attempts at facts, not intentions. You cannot determine what my intentions about guilt or idealism are be from those statements. In other words, you're jumping to conclusions from inadequate evidence.

The reason your conclusions are unnecessary is that I made quite clear what my actual intentions are by stating them specifically numerous times. You are choosing to ignore a large volume of things I am actually saying about my intentions in favor of a couple lines where I am just stating what I believe to be facts. Why you are engaging in such rhetoric, when you and I are probably the only ones who care in the least at this point, is really beyond me.

katecho

Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:00 pm

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

You are making the false assumption that all material things are from God.

It's not false. All material things are from God. Of course we see from Scripture that material things can either be a blessing or a curse, but all material things are still from God. My point was to focus on the blessing side, because we see many examples of such blessings, as with Job, and Abraham.

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

The rest of the world can't live at our standard, or even half our standard, or even a quarter of our standard, because the available resources aren't even physically there.

The rest of the world can't live by Job's standard either, but somehow Job had accumulated all that wealth (twice), by God's blessing, while still being considered righteous in God's eyes. Presumably Job was also a generous man too, but somehow Jonathan would find Job guilty of accumulating more than his equal share of hectare footprint.

The reason I brought up God's material gifts is because of the issue of gratitude. Suppose a pastor of average American means has a large family (more than his share of the 2.45 worldwide average (gasp!)), and suppose his wife had a compact car (with over 250k miles on it) that she uses to drive her children, on dangerous freeways, twice each day, to their Christian school. Now suppose a thoughtful Christian brother gave them his used Chevy Suburban SUV. Should the pastor consider the world's poor and then immediately sell the vehicle and distribute the money? That would strike me, not as generosity, but as ingratitude. Jonathan didn't address this kind of example, and I wonder if his idealism can address it. I'm afraid his reasoning would almost require that the pastor destroy the SUV rather than sell it, since it burns so much gasoline that no one should have it.

katecho

Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:16 pm

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

Yes, my wife and I do share one small laptop that accesses the internet via a cell phone lines. We also, for what it's worth, share a cell phone. Our work would not be possible without those concessions. I do believe that the poor of the world can be greatly served by the education and connections available through computers and internet infrastructure. I don't believe that the massive US overcomsumption of electronics is justified by that.

Jonathan's work would not be possible without concessions. I'm glad that Jonathan can rationalize concessions when he needs to. Jonathan's work is important. But maybe he could save a bit on electricity overconsumption by responding less on Doug's blog? His laptop might last longer too.

[[Yes, that sounds harsh, but I'm trying to apply Jonathan's reasoning to emphasize a point. I don't actualy think it is a reason for Jonathan to cut back on his posting.]]

katecho

Saturday, December 29, 2012 1:14 pm

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

katecho wrote:

Quote:

Huh? Jesus clearly says that his disciples will always have the poor with them. So, do you? If you want to use this verse, which makes clear that Jesus's disciples are expected to have the poor with them and give to the poor in perpetuity, to somehow counter all the very clear verses I just quoted to you, then I believe you have a very weak argument.

Jonathan's exegesis doesn't seem to line up with his own idealism. If Jonathan is suggesting that "with you" means the disciples were housing every last poor person continually under their own roof, then, according to Jonathan's redistributive agenda, why were they still poor? Were the disciples keeping the poor in their poverty, in a jar? If they were all living continually under the care of the disciples, how could we tell the poor ones from the not-poor ones? Wouldn't they all be the same in Jonathan's redistributive world?

Jonathan seems to have missed the point I was responding to. Jonathan had previously said:

Quote:

Such freed men may even, in fact, chose to sell the extra things they have and lay the money at the feet of others so that there will no longer be any poor among them.

Jonathan was presenting an idealistic picture of a world without any significant inequality of wealth, achieved through the power of redistribution. In other words, he isn't talking about actual poverty, but rather any wealth inequality. "Extra things" are to be cut up and redistributed evenly.

While we both affirm that actual poverty will be overcome through the Gospel of the Kingdom, I was pointing out that material acts of charity are not in themselves the means of overcoming true poverty. Giving only mitigates poverty, and only temporarily. The Gospel is what reverses the conditions that sustain cultures of poverty.

katecho

Saturday, December 29, 2012 1:49 pm

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

The aid we provide is a tiny proportion of our own GDP (I believe the most recent year was around 0.15%)

My point was not that we are as generous as we ought to be, or that we aid the countries that we should be aiding, or that the aid is used efficiently. Nor is it my view that the US is (or should be) trying to redistribute its wealth equally to all the world. Aid should be targeted at actual poverty.

My point is that America is far and away the major one actually doing the relief aid. America represents 5% of world population and about 21% of world GDP. When America alone is providing 23% of the economic aid, and 49% of the food aid, then perhaps our problem is not callousness and indifference toward the poor. Perhaps Jonathan would be more consistent if he were to target other nations to begin doing their part. Maybe he could point them to America as a starting example. America certainly has room for improvement, but the overbearing language of guilt and shame that Jonathan levels at the US seems ungrateful and counterproductive.

Jonathan - re:

Sunday, December 30, 2012 8:20 am

katecho wrote:

"The rest of the world can't live at our standard, or even half our standard, or even a quarter of our standard, because the available resources aren't even physically there."

The rest of the world can't live by Job's standard either, but somehow Job had accumulated all that wealth (twice), by God's blessing, while still being considered righteous in God's eyes. Presumably Job was also a generous man too, but somehow Jonathan would find Job guilty of accumulating more than his equal share of hectare footprint.

Katecho, we're the only ones talking here, you can address me directly.

As I've said before, I'm not trying to guilt trip you here. I'm trying to help you see that there might be a more loving response, one that would bless both you and others MORE than material blessings would bless you alone. If you truly love your neighbor as yourself, and you truly think that material things are a blessing, then why would you not want to enhance many people's lives at small cost to yourself?

As far as you riding on the Job example, I think you're trying to mine the story of Job for a lesson that's not there. It's happened before - the disciples were shocked when Jesus told them how impossible it was for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and "woe to the rich". James's people were giving the wealthy extra favor, and he had to tell them that they were destined for destruction and misery instead. By the grace of God, we will learn to love our neighbor first.

katecho wrote:

The reason I brought up God's material gifts is because of the issue of gratitude. Suppose a pastor of average American means has a large family (more than his share of the 2.45 worldwide average (gasp!)), and suppose his wife had a compact car (with over 250k miles on it) that she uses to drive her children, on dangerous freeways, twice each day, to their Christian school. Now suppose a thoughtful Christian brother gave them his used Chevy Suburban SUV. Should the pastor consider the world's poor and then immediately sell the vehicle and distribute the money? That would strike me, not as generosity, but as ingratitude. Jonathan didn't address this kind of example, and I wonder if his idealism can address it. I'm afraid his reasoning would almost require that the pastor destroy the SUV rather than sell it, since it burns so much gasoline that no one should have it.

You have such odd reasoning and scenarios. You seem to assume that an SUV is safer than a compact car, even though SUVs are equally likely to be involved in fatal accidents as cars are (16 to 17 deaths per million vehicles each). And ten years ago, SUVs sitting at 44 deaths/million, but I'm guessing you weren't telling people to give up their SUVs for the safety of their children then. And you seem to assume that selling a possession shows "ingratitude", or that this unknown sin of ingratitude for gifts apparently trumps all other factors. Suppose the pastor did sell the car. Suppose he gave the money to pay for a life-saving treatment for two of his friend's children. How could you possibly think that was wrong? And where I live, the cost of an SUV might not just save one child, but ten. I would never say that someone is sinning if they did not do that. But I think it would be quite a loving act if they did, and I cannot see how God would not approve.

Jonathan - re:

Sunday, December 30, 2012 8:40 am

katecho wrote:

I have said nothing about the disciples hosting every last poor person under their roof. I said they would have the poor with them, always, as Jesus said. And when you live among the poor, you will start to see what it means to love your neighbor as yourself, are humble enough to consider others more than yourself, seek to be a servant rather than be served, and see your brother in need and DO something, as John implored.

If you don't know what that looks like, you can start by reading Acts 2 and 4. Or look at what the pagan emperor Julian said 300 years later:

"Why do we not observe that it is their [the Christians'] benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead, and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism [unbelief of the pagan gods]? For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans [Christians] support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us."

Or read a book like Christine Pohl's "Making Room" about the history of Christian hospitality, or the host of books out there by people who have made the choice to purposely befriend those who society has chosen to purposely avoid (Pohl and Heuretz's "Friendship at the Margins" and Jack et. al's "Sound of Worlds Colliding" are two good starts).

katecho wrote:

I was actually paraphrasing Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-35. I meant that to be obvious, but now that you see that your attack was not on me but on the apostolic community, I hope it leads you to further reflection.

katecho wrote:

While we both affirm that actual poverty will be overcome through the Gospel of the Kingdom, I was pointing out that material acts of charity are not in themselves the means of overcoming true poverty. Giving only mitigates poverty, and only temporarily.

I STRONGLY agree. Justice is far more important than mere giving, which is why the Bible talks about justice (especially justice for the poor, the widow, the stranger, etc.) far more than it talks about simple giving charity.

Jonathan - re:

Sunday, December 30, 2012 8:52 am

katecho wrote:

My point is that America is far and away the major one actually doing the relief aid. America represents 5% of world population and about 21% of world GDP. When America alone is providing 23% of the economic aid, and 49% of the food aid, then perhaps our problem is not callousness and indifference toward the poor.

If you would take a look at the reading material I suggested, you'd see that much of that aid actually benefits America as much or more than the countries they're supposedly helping. That is ESPECIALLY true for food aid. The reason America gives so much food aid is because it benefits the rich American farmers who are getting paid off by that aid, and who have an extremely strong political lobby to ensure the money keeps coming. I really suggest you read the book I linked for you, Enough, to understand this point.

And having 21% of GDP while giving 23% of aid isn't very impressive at all. It's far easier for the country with the largest GDP to give away an equal portion than it is for less wealthy nations. To understand this, imagine a company makes a million dollars in a year, split between a CEO ($250,000) and 100 other employees ($7,500 each). Now, if the CEO gives $30,000 to charity at the end of the year, and the employees only gave $500 each, than the CEO can claim he accounted for an outsized proportion of the giving. But that ignores the fact that the employees sacrifice far more to give their money than the CEO does. Jesus illuminated this concept with the widow's mite example. Giving sacrificially, giving enough that you actually have to give something up, is far more significant than giving a tiny percentage of your immense profits.

And I'm not sure why you're still comparing America's giving to that of other nations. I have never once suggested that we should measure our love for the poor against the standards of other nations. We should measure our love for the poor against what God asks us to do.

katecho wrote:

Perhaps Jonathan would be more consistent if he were to target other nations to begin doing their part.

Of course I target other nations. Every single one of them. However, I am an American, and most people on this blog are American, and so in this context I talk about America.

katecho wrote:

Maybe he could point them to America as a starting example.

No, I think that would be a terrible idea. I prefer to point to the words of Christ and the actions of his disciples as a starting example.

katecho wrote:

America certainly has room for improvement, but the overbearing language of guilt and shame that Jonathan levels at the US seems ungrateful and counterproductive.

Guilt and shame are certainly counterproductive, and I think it would be a bad idea to use them. They rarely result in lasting good. That's why I don't use them, and why you are the only one who has brought either up in this conversation. I think that actual love is a far better motivator.

Jonathan - re:

Sunday, December 30, 2012 8:56 am

katecho wrote:

Jonathan wrote:
"Yes, my wife and I do share one small laptop that accesses the internet via a cell phone lines. We also, for what it's worth, share a cell phone. Our work would not be possible without those concessions."
Jonathan's work would not be possible without concessions. I'm glad that Jonathan can rationalize concessions when he needs to. Jonathan's work is important. But maybe he could save a bit on electricity overconsumption by responding less on Doug's blog? His laptop might last longer too.

I'm not sure why you're still running so hard on making this personal. You keep trying what is called a "Tu quoque" logical fallacy. My behavior does not determine God's directive. That's why making the argument personal doesn't help anyone figure out what they should actually do.

And yes, I think that running a cost-benefit analysis on these decisions is important. The amount of work that it would take to stay in touch with our organizational structure, teammates, church, family, local friends, etc. without owning a phone/laptop appears to be more time and money intensive than owning one, and so we choose to own one of each. To this point, we haven't needed two, and so we stick with one. I think this goes for most things - do they help you love others more than doing something else with your time, money, and energy would? If they don't, then why not sell them (or better yet, not buy them in the first place), and instead use the money and time involved on the more love-enabling decision?

As far as posting here, if I convince just one person to love the poor sacrificially as Jesus has asked us to, then it is more than worth the electricity spent. However, at this point you still seem more inclined on performing for others and making personal remarks, so I'm not sure my time here has any more utility. So you may be right that I'm just wasting electricity and time, and I might as well call it a day.

katecho

Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:28 pm

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

My point actually had to do with ingratitude. I wasn't assuming the safety of SUVs in any general sense, I was actually stipulating that this particular gift was a safety improvement for the kids over their compact car. Jonathan chose to quibble about SUV safety in some general (irrelevant) sense that had nothing to do with my question.

As it turns out though, Jonathan's information is again out of date and/or distorted. He clearly looked up the information, and still didn't get it right. Shear physics should imply that SUVs would be safer than compact cars in a multi-vehicle collision, but there were unique problems with SUVs designs in the 90's. Those have been addressed awhile back and SUVs in this decade show increasing improvements in safety over compact cars. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in 2010, the number of occupant deaths per million vehicles was 70 for cars, and only 31 for SUVs of all types. If you consider compact cars versus large SUVs, the numbers are even more in favor of the SUV. So the rate of dying in a large SUV is around a half to a third the rate of dying in a compact car. That can mean a lot to a family that spends time on the road. Jonathan has again demonstrated that he can't be trusted to interpret statistics correctly.

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

And you seem to assume that selling a possession shows "ingratitude", or that this unknown sin of ingratitude for gifts apparently trumps all other factors.

Actually, I offered no such assumption about other factors and scenarios. I said that it would seem to be the height of ingratitude to sell the vehicle for the idealistic notion of global wealth equality. Jonathan didn't address that point at all. Instead he simply created his own hypothetical involving a life and death scenario. I guess Jonathan didn't want to address my point.

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

Suppose the pastor did sell the car. Suppose he gave the money to pay for a life-saving treatment for two of his friend's children. How could you possibly think that was wrong? And where I live, the cost of an SUV might not just save one child, but ten. I would never say that someone is sinning if they did not do that. But I think it would be quite a loving act if they did, and I cannot see how God would not approve.

This is the logical fallacy of a red herring. I never suggested that the continued ownership of an SUV is worth more than the life of a child. To resort to this kind of smear tactic tells us a lot about the level of guilt manipulation that Jonathan is prepared to undertake.

I would point out that Jonathan didn't address the issue of ingratitude in the hypothetical that I originally presented.

katecho

Thursday, January 03, 2013 8:15 pm

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

katecho wrote:

Quote:

Attack on the apostolic community? That's rich.

Regarding Acts, I believe Doug Wilson has already addressed the proto-communist interpretation of those passage in his writing elsewhere. The outline of Doug's argument is that Christ had warned His people about a judgment to come in their generation, and that, for example, they needed to be able to take flight and not look back once they saw the abomination of desolation and Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. In other words, they needed to be liquid. Owning land wasn't a good investment in that day. However, there was no guilt in keeping the entire proceeds from the sale of one's property, as we see in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. Their guilt was in lying about their generosity, so as to appear holier than they were.

The selling of homes and land was not a long-term prescription for God's people for all times. God has not commanded Christians to be landless, homeless, or renters, in general. To live in uncertain times, with one's bags packed, ready to flee, required cooperation and sharing among believers for practical reasons. The description of this sharing does not indicate the added burden of taking on all the poor unbelievers around them, let alone any notion of responsibility for global wealth redistribution. Rather these passages depict believers sharing among each other. The sharing was within the believing community, as each had need, while God's people were attracting more converts.

In other words, the passages that Jonathan referenced in Acts describe a distinct internal Christian phenomena, and are simply not addressing poverty or wealth redistribution in any normative sense.

katecho

Thursday, January 03, 2013 8:57 pm

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

Fortunately for me, in this entire discussion I somehow managed to avoid suggesting that Jonathan's behavior is the standard. However, Jonathan's arguments really do apply to his own consumption, and I had hoped that his inconsistency might help him to adjust his methods. Rather than apply his own tactics consistently, instead we see that Jonathan makes rational concessions for his consumption of high-tech products and electricity. He provides justifications for the importance of his own consumption.

As Jonathan has pointed out, this inconsistency on his part is not sufficient to undermine his egalitarian, redistributive and Statist view its own merits. That's why other arguments were offered in earlier discussion.

Jonathan wrote:

Quote:

As far as posting here, if I convince just one person to love the poor sacrificially as Jesus has asked us to, then it is more than worth the electricity spent. However, at this point you still seem more inclined on performing for others and making personal remarks, so I'm not sure my time here has any more utility. So you may be right that I'm just wasting electricity and time, and I might as well call it a day.

I've been called a waste of time before, but I think this is the first I've ever been called a waste of electricity.

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Father
Sister Heather
Avuncular
Femina

Nate
Shadow Shroud
Nephew
Amoretti

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Blogroll

Pastors Blogroll