Little Thought on Christian Economics.

I usually do not agree with Glen Beck. I’ll go ahead and say that he can seem a little like Alex Jones, and his conspiracy theories seem to promote a political standpoint that can cause people to be scared of any movement out of the norm at all. But he did mention one thing the other night that I couldn’t help but agree with. Among all the talk that I didn’t agree with about money coming from politicians, he mentioned that we should open our wallets and time to those in need directly. What a surprisingly Godly thing to say. I think he was onto something that has been a wish of God since the beginning. If you read Torah, there is a recurring theme of giving those who need (or will need). In the prophets, there is a calling back to that sort of understanding.

In the New Testament, there is a repeat of that same idea (yes, they repeat the same points and are most of the time not novel in there ideas). They pull from the long history of understanding God as a generous One who wishes others to be that generous image to creation.

I take this idea and apply it more specifically. Most of you have credit/debit cards. What you may not know is that every time you use it, there is an extra fee put onto the charge. It’s not a fee that you pay, you pay what comes up on the register. But the company is charged for running that card. Now, for a large company that makes billions, that is something they anticipate and have the funds to cover this, but I shop and eat and drink at a couple local places that struggle with this. Some have had to fight tooth and nail to come up with ways to either deter the use of cards for items under $5 (a slight inconvenience that some can overlook), or start increasing the price of items (an inconvenience that EVERYONE will notice). You should think about this next time you pay with your card.

There are two ways you can remedy this.

1) Pay with Cash at local setups. They truly local places (places that are not made into a chain or make a substantial amount) will greatly appreciate this. For me this has caused a sense of compassion for the worker and sometimes opens a conversation that can lead to witnessing the faithfulness of Christ (Gal. 2:16). Plus, it at least shows you are aware and responsible.

2) If you pay with your card on an item under $10, leave a 25% or more tip. I even say that if it is below $5, then you should leave a 50% tip. That allows extra funds to allocate for these expenses. This depends on how they disperse their tips, since you have to deal with tips as an earning of the people who service the customer, so you might have to be creative. There is always a way to help cover the problems you might be creating. You can’t erase your wrong, but you can fight to undo the coming consequences.

Something that is always helpful is to eat at home. Although this means that you are not paying someone else something, you are also not wasteful in causing extra, unnecessary funds to be spent. Some of you out there might have a better idea on how to handle these things. But I want to start this dialogue from the Spirit inside you so that conviction will take you to look out for the Saints, humans, and creation.

BE RESPONSIBLE.

BE LOVE.

Grace and peace to you all.

 

Quick Post

As many of you know, I am always pushing for the pro-life stance to be more consistent in their approach to the issue. Although there are many distinctions among abortion, war, murder, genocide, and capital punishment, we can all agree that there is a common theme of death. Some are discriminate and controlled (abortion, murder, capital punishment), while others are merely mass killings with no discrimination (war, genocide). I found that Dr. Witherington III has recently posted an article that some could benefit from. You may not agree with everything, but pay attention to how he attempts to streamline the pro-life stance, making it not only pro-fetus. Another place to look is an early Church Father source. There are quite a few pre-Augustinian Fathers that speak in such a way.

Grace and Peace.

 

Sick and studying

So I’ve been studying like a madman the past couple weeks, when all of a sudden, I’M SICK. I guess life throws curveballs here and there, but I generally like it when it’s convenient. I am working on Galatians and my Exegesis paper is supposed to be 20 pages long. I’m sure I’ll get it done. My passage is going to be 2:15-20. Everything in the book hangs on this as Paul’s thesis. notice how he identifies as a former Jew what the Jewish mind thinks, and then shows that it is not the Law of Moses that saves us, but the faithfulness of Jesus the Christ. Some of your versions say faith IN Jesus Christ, but I translate that later. In Chapter 3 it begins to start focusing on what the believer does in the relationship, but 2:15-20 focuses on what we cannot do. I’ll probably spell that out some in a simplified way later on this blog.

I noticed everybody has their panties in a bind about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I do agree that Obama hasn’t exactly “accomplished” much according to most standards of accomplishment. But I will say that he is off to a good start on a few things. He did at least get a major conversation going on health care, which was needed. He also tried to make good progress with certain countries when he toured the Middle East. And his infamous stance to block lobbyists while running for president was a good face (there is some murky water about lobbyists while a state politician, but I did enjoy him trying to hold them off in the national political realm). To further this discussion, I will say that he was moreso AWARDED the NPP. We can also look at the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. and say that he achieved nothing and that full civil rights was accepted much later (if you want to think that full civil rights was achieved at all). His holiday is mostly considered an african-american holiday and his face mainly shows up during Black History Month. But it stands that he was for Civil-Rights for EVERYONE. He was awarded the prize in the 60’s, and I would say that he was well deserving of it. Many others fall in this line too (I personally am one to be understanding of even Al Gore winning that award for the mere fact of bring attention to the issue of global warming, even if he had his facts mixed up). So be a little more thoughtful before saying Obama is undeserving and then realize that this is something given to someone by a council. Take issue with those Norwegians who award this prize.

Also, I got to see Food Inc. for the first time. I highly recommend it. There is a lot going on in big business when it comes to food that we need to be aware of. It reminded me of the book Serve God, Save the Planet by Dr. Matthew Sleeth. It’s good stuff. I’m extremely moderate and I am not registered with any party, so when it comes to government control of Big Business, I can vote how I think necessary, but in the film, even a Republican has stepped up to say “Enough!” I’ll stop there, since I don’t want to turn this into an emotional rant after seeing Hollywood expose corruption, but I will say to see it. It’s very well laid out for a documentary, and the text at the end of the movie is much more powerful after seeing the film rather than by itself. You begin to hear and see the fate of farmers and consumers and it creates an emotional response that you wouldn’t think is possibly from such a simple line of text. Anyways, go see it and form your own opinions, and then study up to see if you are correct (which means don’t just google it, because that would be stupid).

Grace and Peace to you all.

 

Post on the Healing Seminary

So we had a minister from the Charismatic Episcopalian Church come in to speak for my first attendance of the Healing Conference put on by the Healing Academy at Asbury Seminary. I’m learning some things. I have always realized that healing is part of Christianity, but I have never really been connected to it in my experience. I can’t help but be intrigued, especially since I’ve expounded on this blog that God, according to scriptures (especially Revelation), has already set us free to act, so healing must be a part of our entire ministry. (Understand that our liberation from the powers that be are partial in that God has ALREADY acted, but has NOT YET completed His act.)

I start off with points of contention that I have so far. He mentioned in his lecture and his book Christian Healing that lay people will have to report certain confessions to the civil authorities. He implies in his book and explicitly stated that clergy are protected from witnessing against people in court. I have a hard time with this proposition since Christ was at times public in his rebuke and even seems to imply that good is more important than politics and traditions (though neither He nor Paul were against traditions; in fact, they were supportive of new ones). Another point is that he seems to read some of modern psychology and medicine into the Scriptures. He is not over the mountain with his use, but I would encourage him to use caution. I also had a hard time following the idea of souls that never depart onto the Lord for there rest or judgement. His experience inclines him to say this, but since my experience with this, and the first point also, is very limited, I will just say that I have a hard time following him in this part of ministry.

I will, however, give him due credit for his comments about liberal and conservatives in politics. He admitted that he prefers the conservative Republican stance, but he has his mind limited on them. He says that they can be quite haughty in there stance and that, in his opinion, they are 99% of the time pro-fetus, and not actually pro-life (see some of my post on Abortion, War and Capital Punishment). He is right in saying that one side will want to keep the fetus alive just they can live in relative poverty (which is not supportive of living well), and the other side will support those that survive the allowances they have to kill them. How many are anti-war and still allow babies to die, and how many want to keep babies alive and support wars that they will grow up to be killed in? There needs to be a full application of the philosophies used in life (like sanctity of life).

He also mentioned that healing ministry is not what he is all about; instead he is about the church’s ministry. That is to say, healing is not the only thing he does. I agree completely. One should seek whole ministry. Too many extremist will focus on one thing or another, but not seek some measure of balance. This is something to consider for any minister, lay or clergy.

As far as his application of what the Lord has already done, I give him kudos points galore. And his view of what is to come is not too bad either.

 

Point 5: Economy

I heard a sermon awhile back at a church where a pastor preached a sermon on the commandment of stealing. You could tell that the man was referring to taxes and that he was implying that the taxing of the top percent of Americans would be stealing. I wasn’t sure how much to agree with him. Sure, taxing is not exactly stealing until you talk about those poor who have been oppressed by stealing, but for the top percent of the country, I’m sure that they have much to spare.

That got me thinking. How does the church view economy and money. I can’t help but think back to acts and the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 and how many of us find our feet on the same cliff they were on. Do we give it all, or try to keep some for ourselves? And if we keep some, do we lie or come clean with what we have kept?

How many times have we done that?

How many times should we have died at the feet of God’s throne?

I do believe that the gospel counters much of what any government is. Most tend to say that they will bring hope and change for the better, but with the Christian, that is God. Obama has said “Yes, We Can,” which can be pushed to a level that equals the Tower of Babel at times. But we must remember Bush as he stood on the debris of the twin towers and vowed vengeance, which landed us in two wars, one which most think we should not have stormed into, and a prison which suffers from human rights charges. Being a Christian, I would say that although I voted for both of these men, they have come short in many ways. (I don’t mean to bash them too hard, but I do want to point out the reality of humanity.)

Maybe we should be more attentive to God’s will. You hear many saying this or that about taxes and the economy, but the truth is that our country is struggling, and the Church has a potential for greatness. Crisis has an element of chaos, but also of opportunity.

Where are our old saints who opened hospitals and orphanages?

I hate to say this out of enjoying Capitalism, but the first century Church had some ideas that would lean toward socialism (Though at other times, seems very much like a democratic republic). I think it’s funny that Christians are yelling that they are scared of Obama because he is a socialist, never mind the social security check they will be cashing in (assuming that it will still be there in the future). Plus, they would probably have yelled the same about Peter and the decisions of the early Church for spreading the wealth.

I just think that the Christians need to open their eyes to suffering, and they might not yell so much. Disagree if you like, but there needs to be a solution discussed immediately.

I end by recalling the Rich Man who had an overabundant harvest (Luke 12:13-21, Luke has a tendency to critique the rich). He decided to build bigger barns to hold ever bit of that grain. We must remember that the first century Jew would know to be appalled at this since the man was supposed to keep the same barn and actually leave some grain for the widow, the orphan, the poor, and even the alien. So, in layman’s terms, if the rich find ways to get richer while the poor get poorer, or even cause them to get poorer (remember that we must never look at resources as endless) than something is wrong. And it becomes quite obvious whom God will vindicate when he comes to judge.

Grace and Peace to you all.

 

Point 3: Abortion

Yeah, I know this one is tough, but I think it’s time I just say some things about it. Everyone seems to make it a very simple issue of black and white. I can’t help but think that it might that simple in and of itself, but I differ on answering the problem. Sometimes when looking at that simple problem takes an answer that is a little complex.

I turn to the pro-choice people. I tend to not agree with all that the pro-choice argument states, even though it’s difficult to really draw a line that separates two beings when one is still in the womb. I tend to think that pregnancy is a gift of responsibility, which is the only point that pro-choice is applicable, since a law controlling that would be an invasion of freedom. There is a good number of people arguing the pro-choice argument that argue more on a political idea that says that government shouldn’t be telling people what they should do with their bodies. Although we disagree with how that is being pushed too far, the majority of this group is admitting that there is a problem with the number of abortions today, which is good. I’ll return to this later.

The pro-life argument I tend to agree with, but usually just with the abortion issue. Let’s be honest, most of them argue against abortion, but there are other things that they accept without paying any attention to their arguments of sanctity of life. If someone argues for the sanctity of life, you have to at least consider it when it comes to things like war and capital punishment. It’s a illogical to give attention to one type of killing and turn a blind eye to another type, unless you find a new foundation for your argument, which means kiss the sanctity of life argument and Christian world-view goodbye. Or, if you want to push the true pro life view point, take it further, start looking for things that would in general be contrary to preserving life. Some are starting to see that we should oppose killing of any kind. Just look at the Patristic father Justin who disowned even the abandonment of children and his contemporaries who generally ranked abortion and infanticide with killing, whether homicide, warfare, or even capital punishment.

I personally think that there are some complications that produce gray area. Let’s say that I had a wife who had complications with pregnancy and the doctor presented the choice of saving the child or the mother. I don’t exactly what I would say. I would probably lean in favor of the wife, but you can see the problem. Or, let’s say, a guy has a gun and is getting ready to shoot my family, but I have access to a gun and can stop him. I just don’t know what I would do. I would like to talk him away from it and beg for the life of everyone, but I just don’t know.

One of my points may cause some people to swallow their pride. Many Pro-life proponents would not even think about joining sides with one for pro-choice legislation, and the same vice-versa. But let’s think about the fact that there are pro-choicers who admit that there is a problem. Most of the sides take to picket protests and holding signs that simply say things that not only are dividing, but hurtful at times. The point is to help with the problems in a way that reflects Christ. This would mean that maybe those who admit that there is a problem have had something revealed to them. What if we could let go of our pursuit of legislation and move towards programs that would help lessen the punch of the problem? That actually would move toward an answer better than what we’re doing right now. If we are concerned with the sanctity of life, then we must no longer stand on a platform that goes nowhere, but step towards inclusion with those who also want to answer a crisis despite political philosophy. Perhaps that will be the picture of grace and, even more importantly, hope that this debate has been lacking for a very long time in America.

Some would call me a little naive, and understandably so. Most of those people work with the idea that we will not return here after we die and that the separation is necessary in order to make the most of here. That is extremely unbiblical. The bible teaches us that resurrection for us will be physically real.

That here, in this world, but just in a transformed reality.

The point that I make is that the Christian has a different basis of reality, so that they are  not naive, but in a new hope and in a different world view. So don’t judge too quickly. If you truly believe in resurrection, then death here means nothing, since whoever dies will be present in the Lord, which means that when God returns and resurrects everyone, that they will be present with everyone else.

So don’t worry about trying to punish people by using violence. We push for redemption, and that means no vengeance, which is tough. But once again, resurrection, which leads to a line of thought.

Someone is murdered,

but they are going to be resurrected later,

so there is no point in getting revenge or being scared of dying.

And since we are enemies of Death as Christ was, we do not cause death (or try to).

These are just some thoughts. Don’t be scared of dying, and don’t be so prideful to team up with someone who is willing to approach some answers. Although you may do it for different reasons, at least for a Christian it becomes a point of going towards the Kingdom and taking as many with you as you can.

At least consider some of this.

Grace and peace to you all.

 

Point 2: Racism/Nationalism

I’ve been at home this week, so I’ve had plenty of time to sit and think. I think we’ve all seen the current situation with the president commenting on the arrest of a certain professor, and the events that have led to the pictures of Obama, Biden, Gates, and Crowley sitting down to a beer and a discussion. Although Obama made a comment that was negative to the police present in the situation, he was quick to say that his words probably were not well put. The thing that I give Obama two thumbs up for is his asking Gates and Crowley to sit together with him as a mediator (MLK, Jr. would have been proud), since this was gaining much publicity on a national level. This led me to wonder about the Christian view of race, which is hard to pinpoint because the view of skin color as a means for ethnic separation was not important in Bible times like it is today in our country.

I now turn to Deuteronomy 23:7. The verse at face value seems a little odd, and not very spiritual. But this was spiritual enough for the ancient Israelite. To say that something so social relevant and spirituality could be separated would have made no sense to him. He was forced to look at certain groups as his kin, despite his desire to not do so (since they were closely related according to the way their written history plays itself out). What is even more bizarre is that they are ordered to not “abhor any of the Egyptians.” There was no ethnicity that Israel had more right to hate than the Egyptians, yet to the ones living among them is giving freedom from oppression and revenge.

It’s really upsetting to hear people say things about the other races. I know my generation isn’t as bad as some who have come before. The USA is getting better. But we have even more road before us. As for the Christians we might have more considering Sunday morning is probably one of the more segregated times in our country. The Bible seems to push toward a day when all nations will be brought to the Presence and healed from their ailments (Rev. 22:1-2). If Christians want that, they have to live it. How do they think they will be allowed into God’s Kingdom if they do not live out at least in intention the love of all people, no matter their race or ethnicity (which the popular view seems to define this by nation of origin other than your own).

One of the worst applications of racism I have heard is the phrase “I hate it when they inter-mix,” which describes two “races” coming together in lifelong commitment. The problem with this is that it is mostly white people who say this one (from my experience) and European History disproves that statement. It’s is common knowledge that European history is filled with migrations and everyone is likely to be a product of “mixing it up.” If a French man marries a Polish woman, that technically might be two ethnicities mixing. The same would go for an Italian woman and an Irish man. You can see where this is going. The racist comment that is in question is disproved by it’s own logic. (For more, try reading some articles in Ethnicity). In such reasoning, I would propose that Christianity is more in tune with reality because it doesn’t accept “the way it is.” We, instead, hope for “the way it should be,” which is how we live and how the world will be when Christ submits all authority to himself for God. And all this ties into previous post and Nationalism. I say to any citizen of any country that is a Christian, according to all this, God will take over. So you better be more loyal to him than your “worldly” home (your country).

So, the Christian doesn’t just follow history,

He follows they history maker

and the history changer.

I cannot emphasize enough that it is not the skin that defines the love between two people, but love itself defines it. Love is what defines any relationship since it is fully committed to the other’s well being, and will struggle to head toward an even healthier relationship.

So love, despite…

race,

ethnicity,

gender,

economic status,

nationality,

etc.

Just love.

Grace and peace to you all.

 

Point 1: Immigration

I know, it’s a touchy subject for most people. I am not going to lie to you by saying it’s not a problem. If we really look at it, it’s causing certain problems that need answering. I am also not going to pretend to have the answers for this country at this time. There are quite a few theories on how to handle it that haven’t been tested and prove (whether it be sending them back, making them all legal, or whatever). But I do have a slight idea is how the ancient Israelites were expected to treat the immigrants that crossed into their lands unannounced (much like the immigrants of today). Even the New Testament shows some recognition that aliens choosing to reside in the community must be given a way in, which means creativity.

I’ll go ahead and point out that some verses give us a view that the covenant continually gives provisions for the alien/stranger. (Ex. 12:48, 49; Lev. 24:22; Joshua 8:33, 35; Isaiah 14:1; Ezek. 14:7; Eph. 2:12, 19). The alien, though with stipulations, could be allowed to participate in a ritual that defined a nation. I know it seems hard to find any connection, but I think it’s a start in understanding the foreign relations in the ancient times and maybe we can take some pointers from them. The one covenant, even the old version, gave provisions for the foreigner. Even the Sabbath was something that the foreigner could find participation in on some level (Ex 20:10, 23:12; Dt 5:14, 16:11, 14, 26: 5, 11, 12, 13). Most would think that the Jews only allowed blood lines from Abraham to be in on the fun, but it’s just not true. Though the religious were very strict by the first century A.D., it’s obvious that the Law came from a belief in God who cares for the needs of the alien as well as One who asks for them to contribute to the community.

A major point I would hit on is an idea of oppression(Ex. 22:21, 23:9; Dt. 1:16, 10:18, 24:14, 17, 27:19; Psalm 94:6, 146:9; Jer. 7:6, 22:3; Ezek. 22:7, 29; Zech. 7:10; Mal. 3:5). I’m not going to push like the guys back in the civil rights days because I am not up to date on current treatment of immigrants and the views of the veteran citizens compared to the newly arrived Hispanic community (or any other community for that matter). But I do want Christians to be very cautious on how they treat immigrants. It is one thing to demand justice (which is more about equilibrium, than it is about getting what some term as “fair”), but it is another to seek control over what a political or ethnical entity considers rightfully theirs (which sounds more like what people call “fair”). Whatever Americans choose, Christians in America must step in a way that shows that we expect people to act in responsibility in a new land, but not at the cost of oppressing the alien. If we return them, we must show that we mean no true harm to them. If we let them stay somehow, we should not cheat them out of fair earnings. I honestly do not think that the Christian agenda is primarily whether to send the immigrant away or keep them around. I would propose that it is actually that we should seek to treat them with care and support despite the government’s decision since our obedience belongs to a higher authority and our loyalty belongs to a kingdom/nation whose lines of membership far exceed geo-political boundaries and far outweigh laws of this world.

The final point is that those who are in God’s Kingdom are expected to share in what we have with those who are not from our place and care for them (Lev. 19:10; Dt. 10:19, 14:29, 24:19, 20, 21; Joshua 20:9; Ezek. 47:22, 23; Matt. 25:35, 38, 43, 44; Romans 12:13; Heb. 13:2). It is imperative that we have provisions ready for those who are not from here. It is important for both parties to share in what they can offer each other. I do believe that such a generosity would be the answer to our problems and we probably wouldn’t have any problem at all had that been the case at the start. If you are an immigrant, fight to be a contributer to those in your community. If you are a resident, you should do the same.

So to both, I would like both side of the issue to listen to an alternative route to both. Let’s encourage responsibility, but do it in a way that is just and righteous.

This isn’t to tell which political stance. It is a Christian perspective on how to approach any political stance.

Christianity is a stance that is far beyond any political stance (Democrats or Republicans should pay close attention to that).

It’s just some food for thought.

I hope that everyone can get something from this.

Grace and Peace.

 

New Series

In my next few posts, I am going to try to give Christian advice to government problems. Some political conservatives aren’t going to like it, and neither will some liberals either. What the point is is to create and conservative CHRISTIAN position might be. I don’t claim to understand this, but I am giving some advice from what I know to be Scripturally true.

 

New Book

I’m reading N. T. Wright’s Simply Christian. It has been interesting so far seeing him taking an alternative approach to truth in a conservatively Christian manner. He has started moving away from focusing on winning people by arguments based on absolute truths that much of the Western Church has taken. He wants to focus more on Justice, the unseen that we seek, relationships, and beauty to help us get to even the concept of God. He seems similar to C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, which is apologetic in a Modern sense. But Wright is differing on some levels since he is interacting with more post-modern critique than Lewis ever did. I look forward to this.

I’m also reading Umberto Eco’s Foucalt’s Pendulum, Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game, and Henri Nouwen’s In the Name of Jesus. So far, the reading is excellent.

Grace and Peace.