When I started hearing good things about the book from my friends, I became intrigued. When I became aware of Platt’s criticism of consumerism and American prosperity, my economic antennae went up and I decided to check it out.

I was pleasantly surprised.

Weaved throughout is Platt’s own internal struggle to grasping the purpose of God’s grace, and he encourages his faith community to do the same. Through his struggle he has come out realizing that his heart isn’t completely sold out to the gospel of Christ as much as it is partially leased to the American Dream, which Platt describes as a pursuit of material blessing for himself without consideration of others or the broader Kingdom purposes for which God has made him. God is in it for God’s glory, and we are given God’s grace so that we can multiply his image throughout the rest of the world. We are here to extend God’s glory, not simply enjoy the material rewards of grace and blessing. Platt makes a biblical but realistic case for our radical abandonment to the gospel of Jesus Christ. His belief is that those radically sold out to Christ will experience greater reward and satisfaction in life than simply enjoying the material blessings of this world.

When most authors rail against the evils of materialism, their passion often overshadows a realistic vision for what God might want for followers of Jesus. While Platt is adequately passionate about radical abandonment to the call of Christ to reach the world with the gospel, he does so with personal transparency and an open spirit toward wealth itself. He doesn’t go out of his way to condone “getting rich,” but neither does he condemn it. Most interesting to me was in many of his examples of people who have been changed by the message of the gospel, he did not choose only those who sold everything they had and took a vow of poverty. He included wealthy businessmen who stayed wealthy and still lived comfortable lives, but still became radical in their vision for what they did with their wealth. Platt also shares his struggle with buying a larger house than he needed, or the expense in going to Sudan rather than sending the money to directly help those in Sudan. He stands out from his peers writing on these topics primarily because he maintains a radical commitment without blurring reality and making it seem impossible.

Platt is passionate, to be sure. He is urgently committed to his theme. But while the book takes us through his plea for abandonment to the gospel of Christ, he doesn’t throw out the good with the bad. In short, he’s truly radical without being extreme. He is realistic throughout.

As a pastor, Platt’s natural tendency is to lead others to action, so he concludes the book with what he calls the “Radical Experiment.” His appeal to wealthy Americans is to consider that we are blessed to be a blessing, not to simply own and enjoy the toys we have on this earth. The experiment, which can be viewed online here, is simple and attainable for most, though the length of the commitment is a bit hefty for most—one entire year. In it he exhorts the reader to pray for the entire world, read through the entire Word, sacrifice money for a specific purpose, spend time in another context (preferably helping those in need), and committing our lives to multiplying community.

Sounds radical, but each of them is realistic on its own. Bundling them together means a higher commitment, but it’s doable.

Radical provides a new insight for those wrapped up in the American Dream. It challenges without being judgmental or demanding. It encourages without being flowery or verbose. Above all, the experiment is realistic.

If being radical is realistic, then I’m in.

Random Posts

• Heartache and Solitude (0)
• Sunshot? (0)
• I’m Not Wasting My Vote (2)
• Staying Up-to-Date with Blogs (2)
• Cross Country (0)

2012 should be a great year of material.

Random Posts

• Blog News and Updates (0)
• A Conversational Gospel (0)
• Mikey and Me… Agree? (0)
• A Holy Experiment (0)
• Suggested Articles for Reading (0)

Charles Gutenson‘s new book, Christians and the Common Good, seeks to ask perhaps a better question: “How does God intend for us to live together?” The author believes this question is broader than the narrow one about the role of government because it sets the stage for answers regarding our Christian witness, our relationships with others, and our participation in God’s intention for the world. How we answer this question has ramifications for more than just our personal beliefs about politics. It defines who we are as human beings and as a society.

Gutenson aims to clean up the sloppy biblical interpretation habits most Christians have when reading the Bible so that they can see how the Bible has much more to say about our public life than many Christians assume. The key to this understanding is to read what the Bible has to say about the character and nature of God while noticing that throughout the Scriptures God has intended for people to live out the application of God’s character.

Gutenson argues for three steps for us to discern what God intends for society: (1) examine the manner in which we read and understand Scripture, (2) maintain focus on the Scriptures as the foremost about who God is and what God is like, and (3) determine the implications of the divine nature so we can discern how to live together to God’s satisfaction. The rest of the book flows from these three steps, ending with some practical suggestions for public policy for those in the United States (though the suggestions could be similarly applied elsewhere). Preparing readers for what might seem radical, he reminds us that “a major reason for the increasing irrelevance of the church for today’s culture is the inability both to envision and to demand an alternative way of being in the world” (pg 18). Gutenson also warns us of the temptation for political power in both the left and the right. Both sides of the political aisle have grabbed power at the expense of others or have conflated the purpose of the Kingdom with the purpose of political entities.

On Reading Scripture

One of the biggest advantages of this book is Gutenson’s treatment of how we ought to read the Bible. Most Christians are conditioned to ignore the context of passages or trained to “mine Scripture” for little golden nuggets of truth to apply to our lives. What’s important, says Gutenson, is that we be trained to “appropriate the Bible holistically” (pg 27). Instead of focusing on more narrow definitions regarding salvation, Gutenson believes we have been led away from political concerns. When salvation is only about the individual, public concerns get pushed to the margins or are considered optional for followers of Jesus, when Jesus himself advocated strongly for those at the margins of society.

Gutenson uses a few examples of how many people have proof-texted the Bible and used it as evidence for their own political opinions. He explains how Romans 13 needs to be read in light of Romans 12, which explains how God expects humans to live together. While avoiding advocating that governments enforce Romans 12, he does explain that whatever form government takes it must serve God’s agenda. He also examines the oft-cited passage Luke 20:20-25 where Jesus says to “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and give unto God that which is God’s.” Gutenson rightly points out that nothing in this passage indicates that Jesus intended to guide us on how Christians should view public institutions. As a general rule, Gutenson warns us that we must “be cautious about concluding too much by reading more into the story than it will bear” (pg 33).

If we take Scripture seriously while allowing for differences between our culture and culture described in the Scriptures, Gutenson believes we can avoid some common errors. When applying Scripture, we must consider the following questions:

• What is the underlying problem or opportunity that God is dealing with in giving this command to the people of that particular time?
• Do similar problems or opportunities face us in our contemporary setting?
• What role might public policies and institutions play in helping to resolve these problems or taking advantage of these opportunities?

Gutenson starts with the nature of God as indicative of how we ought to live together. The Trinitarian belief that God is three persons in one is probably the most dominant characteristic of God’s nature because it reveals the God who interacts with creation. God’s self-giving love embodies interdependence among the members of the trinity, specifically in God’s sending of the Son to heal the broken relationship between the world and God. The incarnation shows us what God is like, and reveals to us “how humanity, as God intended it, is to be and act” (pg 64). It is through Jesus that we see what God has intended for us as human beings, both personally and socially.

Biblical Vignettes

After spending nearly 80 pages exploring how we should read the Scriptures and laying some guidelines for how we discern implications for our public lives today, Gutenson comes to the biblical passages he feels gives us vignettes into the overarching narrative of Scripture. Gutenson explains God’s vision for humanity by touring the Bible from the beginning.

A few snippets:

• Exodus 20 is a set of instructions for how our lives are to be lived together in a way that pleases God. Leviticus 19 shows God’s demands that neither rich nor poor get preferential legal treatment; all are to be treated “equally under the law.”
• In Deuteronomy 15 God promises that there will be nobody in need among Israel when they have obeyed God’s intentions for living together.
• Isaiah 10 warns us that lawmakers have a strong temptation to use their powers to slant the playing field, robbing the poor of their rights. It is an explicit recognition that institutional evil can be built into the laws governing a particular society.
• Jeremiah 29 demonstrates the beginnings of God’s initiative for Israel to be a blessing to its former enemies by permitting it to intermarry with foreigners.
• Ezekiel 16 reminds us that a special revelation from God (like Israel had) is not required for God to hold societies accountable to their obligation to hear the cry of the needy.
• The entire book of Amos reminds us that “to be quiet in the midst of perverse societal structures is to effectively participate in the exploitation of those on the margins” (pg 102).

In the New Testament, Gutenson tours Matthew 5-7, 25, and 26, explaining to us that Jesus lives out God’s intention for us but also speaks out about what God’s expectations are. A classic text regarding the poor, Matthew 26, is discussed briefly. For those most inclined to believe that Jesus wasn’t interested in relieving the plight of the poor since they will “always be with us” (which is in a sense an everlasting statistical fact), Jesus intended to communicate that his followers are and would be the types of people who would always be among the poor, serving them and advocating for them.

When Gutenson comes to the apostolic letters, he gives special attention to 2 Corinthians 8:12-15, which says in part, “The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.” This passage, Gutenson believes, implies that God intends for economic life to be structured so that wealth disparity does not grow too large. He then uses the book of James to demonstrate the link between faith and works, and more specifically, the tendency of rich people to feel threatened by those who are poor. Gutenson follows up with other passages, but these are sufficient to show where he is going.

His conclusions? Humans must be imitators of God, live in ways that embody self-giving love, and take seriously our obligation to use our resources for the benefit of others. He also concludes that governments are ordained by God, society can be judged by how well it cares for its most marginal members, and God intends for human economies to be structured so that there will be no poor.

With the exception of some of his conclusions, Christians sympathetic to the libertarian viewpoint will have minor quibbles with Gutenson, perhaps disagreeing on some details (Gutenson believes we are a liberal democracy) or on the interpretation of “ordained by God.” What cannot be denied is that the one story of God as revealed in the Scriptures has plenty to say about our public life together, and is not simply a book about individual salvation or eternal destinies.

Gutenson is right that God wants us to live together peacefully, in harmony, and in mutual interdependence. Gutenson does not, however, get into detail about the relationship between governments and society. We have the luxury in 21st century Western culture to assume that governments carry out the will of the people, and thus the question about living together in society is inextricably linked to the state that governs us. But it has not always been so throughout history. God’s intention for humanity may indeed be living together as Gutenson demonstrates. But it is neither explicit nor implied in Scripture that governments must be the mechanism by which people are encouraged to live this way.

Human Governance and Public Policy

Gutenson will have a bit of difficulty convincing libertarian Christians with his suggestions for public policy. He calls them suggestions in order to be careful to not prescribe exact policies as “the right ones” and because his purpose is to foster discussion on what it means to live out God’s desires for human relationships.

What will trouble many readers not automatically sympathetic to his political viewpoints is his belief that our governing structure is a “liberal democracy.” Last I checked, the founders of the United States established (for better or worse) a constitutional republic so that the United States would be a nation of laws governed by a document designed to protect people from tyranny and establish a “general welfare” with specific descriptions on how to do so (whether they were successful or not is another serious question). Remarkably, Gutenson doesn’t discuss at all how the Constitution of the United States relates to how we live together under God’s intentions. Ignoring the most obvious point about how our society is arranged cannot be a mistake. Gutenson, who clearly has spent much energy into the intersection of faith and politics, likely ignored the Constitution intentionally because most progressives would love to disabuse us of the notion of a constitutional republic.

A second troubling aspect of the book is his explicit statements that God’s intentions for government are outcome related. Art Carden has pointed out that “the important question in social science is not really evaluating the moral quality of the outcome, but evaluating the institutions that produce the outcome.” Gutenson does state, thankfully, “that when the powers fail to serve [a kingdom agenda], they become demonic and serve to be destructive of the very things they were created to serve” (pg 128). Yet while Gutenson makes no mention of the United States straying far from its constitution, many are calling it back to that “governing authority” (to cite Romans 13). Even if the Constitution isn’t one’s cup of tea, it doesn’t take too much examination to realize that the Federal Government of the United States has become an institution delivering far more evil than it does good. It should be critiqued and abandoned for social institutions that actually accomplish the agenda God has for the world. Putting faith in government only exacerbates social injustices when the institution itself is corrupt and unredeemable.

Gutenson warms my heart with statements like this about the voice the Church must have in society: “The role of the church is to just be the church, but in so doing the church should both embody and speak critique to the powers that have been corrupted and no longer serve a kingdom agenda” (pg 143). That is why I’m a libertarian! Jesus confronted the empire, showed an alternate way of living together, and demonstrated self-giving love. Implicit in the proclamation “Jesus is Lord” is the claim, “Caesar is NOT!”

Gutenson’s least-convincing chapter is the last. While not completely void of good suggestions, in it he proposes different policies that are supposed to encourage human beings to live together in a way God intends.

While the purpose of this review isn’t to rebut every suggestion made by Gutenson, it is important to realize that the most specific public policy suggestions explored below are ones based merely on good intentions. But policies cannot be backed by mere intentions. Not only must they actually work, they must also achieve their outcomes ethically. Some of Gutenson’s suggestions neither achieve their intended outcome nor demonstrate God’s intention for human beings. In some cases they run contrary to God’s intentions.

The progressive income tax, according to Gutenson, helps to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few and aims to ensure that taxes don’t prevent access to essential goods and services that the poor among us rely upon. Yet there is no explanation as to how a progressive income tax per se is what ensures such outcomes. The ethics of an income tax on the fruits of one’s labor is questionable, yet even if it were morally permissible, there is no reason to believe that living in mutual interdependent self-giving love requires more confiscation by the state from those who have been successful at producing goods for society. A flat tax can be considered “progressive” because the wealthy pay more because they produce more and make higher profits.

Social Security and Medicare are the sacred cows of the progressive movement. Gutenson cites Social Security’s “remarkable success” in “lifting the elderly out of poverty” (pg 155). Outcomes are dominant in this line of thinking. Little regard is given to the insolvency of both programs while the ethics involved in acquiring the money to redistribute are ignored. Whether we think taxation or redistribution is theft or not, Social Security is a legally authorized Ponzi scheme continued only by pandering to the fears of the people who have become dependent upon it. While the intention is for us to live together in a community of self-giving love, the result has been a society divided by the ones who feel unjustly “taken from” and those who feel entitled to something that is not their own.

Most importantly Social Security is nothing but a veneer of God’s desires for society when at its core it is neither social nor secure. If Christians are serious about ways that we can be mutually interdependent and live in a society that God intends for us, we ought to seek opportunities for such an outcome in ways that bring people closer together rather than allow or cause them to drift apart. The taxes I pay for Social Security do nothing to bring me closer to the elderly folks I’m supposedly helping. If anything it gives me more incentive to not have to care about them!

Minimum wage laws are probably the clearest example of a policy backed by good intentions that does precisely the opposite of that which it intends (even the original intentions of minimum wage laws are suspect). Christian economist Art Cardenrecently cited a study that shows that minimum wages laws disproportionately burdens young African Americans with unemployment. Carden writes of the minimum wage:

“I oppose minimum wages for a couple of reasons.  First and most obviously, they hurt the poor.  Second, the minimum wage is one of the most visible ways that the anti-economic way of thinking manifests itself in the policy arena.  If we are going to make policy that privileges the wants and needs of the least of these among us, then the minimum wage has to go.”

Carden provides his own sources for his claims here, here, here, and here, and endorses another here. If one is interested in social justice rather than social control, this is a good article.

Access to health care, it is proposed, should be available to all human beings regardless of their ability to pay for the services needed. Gutenson starts this section with “It is hard to imagine that God’s intentions that all should flourish could be satisfied without health care access” (pg 159). Perhaps this is so, and since there is no explicit mention of health care services in the Bible, it isn’t completely out of the picture that God’s intentions are for people to be living healthy lives. We must seriously consider this as part of God’s desire for society.

Yet access to health care, as Gutenson explains (and nobody denies), is expensive. Insurance companies deny claims based on “preexisting conditions.” The uninsured are charged higher rates at the doctor despite being unable to afford insurance. Whatever the injustices of the health care system, Gutenson fails to address the reasons behind why such injustices are prevalent. Regulation after regulation bars competition into just about every field of medicine from nursing to pharmaceuticals. Competition is virtually nonexistent, so prices do not fall. Government grants monopoly privileges to pharmaceutical companies through patents that last for years, while the FDA literally prevents experimental life-saving drugs to enter the market.

The government has distorted the health care industry in so many ways, it is no wonder that prices have soared while in industries like technology where there is virtually nonexistent intervention and regulations prices plummet. If we are to imagine a way to live as God intends, a state solution is the last mechanism that will actually accomplish this.

Estate and inheritance taxes are often justified by Christians as a modern-day application of the Years of Release and Years of Jubilee from the Old Testament. God’s intention is that there not be a permanently dispossessed class of people while the vast accumulation of wealth stays in the hands of a few. Gutenson claims there is nothing inherent about this particular application of those principles in the estate and inheritance taxes, but he misses the point of contention among those who disagree. First, the presumption that without such laws wealth continues to accumulate into the hands of the few is unfounded. Second, most anti-estate tax folks are against it for moral reasons. Third, it is an economically destructive tax that confiscates the fruits of those who have been productive and distributes it to a political class that has no incentive to allocate the capital or resources wisely, efficiently, or in a way God intends.

Another unintended consequence of the inheritance tax is that it unjustly removes capital and sometimes labor from the economy when the stewards of such wealth intend for it to be used for Kingdom purposes. In my corner of the world many entrepreneurs are using their capital to benefit the Kingdom of God around the globe. Not only do these businessmen have to waste energy prior to their death avoiding Uncle Sam from taking God’s money for another kingdom, after their death their wealth cannot be used for the Kingdom purposes God has intended for these entrepreneurs to carry out. The very people who intend to live out their own obligation to use their resources for the benefit of others are robbed from the opportunity to do so by those who have no intention nor incentive to use those resources wisely.

Monopolies are a favorite target of interventionists, and it’s ironic that Gutenson argues for legislation against monopolization of markets when the very reasons monopolies exist is government protection of business interests at the expense of others. What Gutenson claims is “undue market power” must be examined in light of the federal government’s granting of monopoly privileges. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws claim to prevent Big Business from harming “the little guy,” but they do nothing of the sort. The source of everlasting monopolies is government protection.

Even more ironic is that Gutenson seems to have no problem with an institution (government) that has a monopoly on the use of force to accomplish the ends by which he claims ought to be God’s intention for us as human beings. I’m anti-monopoly, too; but I apply this to governments as well.

Concluding Thoughts

I have focused plenty on some of the problematic suggestions Gutenson gives near the end of his book. I expected this before reading it, but what I didn’t expect was to nearly wholeheartedly endorse his guidelines for how we enter the biblical text and apply to our personal and public lives. Gutenson gently yet persuasively challenges the reader’s assumptions about Scripture in a writing style superior to most progressive Christian authors I’ve read. Most impressive is his clear and succinct way of exploring how Christians ought to engage culture and think about public life without using rhetoric filled with ideological passion that detracts from what he is saying. Gutenson aligns with God’s intentions for humanity and has done us a favor by exploring the relevant passages in Scripture that deal with God’s intention for humanity.

As I’ve suggested throughout this review, Gutenson fails to address some critical questions about the nature of states and the relationship between society and government. It is not a natural conclusion that “we” are the government, and thus whatever the government does it is acting on behalf of the people. To take seriously what God intends for our public life means we must define and understand what “we” means, whether or not that entails political action, and what (if any) relationship that has with the state. Gutenson doesn’t address these important questions, which may be disappointing for a libertarian reader.

Christians and the Common Good is an outstanding introduction to understanding the intentions of God through the narrative of Scripture. It gloriously dismisses faulty interpretive habits while challenging the assumptions about particular passages or precepts found in the Scriptures. When it comes to the biblical journey, Gutenson has written a wonderful book. But if we are to follow Gutenson’s own standard— “the best policies are ones that are consistent with the life of faith, satisfy God’s intentions, and actually work” (pg 146)—careful economic and historical examination will lead us to reject many of his policy suggestions.

Gutenson writes early in the book that Christians have become irrelevant to the culture because they’ve been unable to envision an alternative way of being in the world. Indeed, this is why the Christian anarchist might suggest that Gutenson reconsider his own theology of the state and society. John Maynard Keynes said, “The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.”

Imagining a world wholly different from our own indeed takes a radical vision. But advocating state-based solutions to social problems is neither imaginative nor radical.

Random Posts

• Freedom is Golden (0)
• Going back to school (0)
• My Spiritual Journey, 2003-2008 (3)
• Cambodia, Day One (0)
• Quote from Marx (1)

I collect quotes. Over the years I’ve collected many that resurrect hope and evoke enough passion so as to convince me that this journey is worth it. While not every libertarian or Christian is trained or interested in the economic way of thinking, I’d like to share a few that I have collected over the past few years.

Although an unlikely source for Austro-Libertarians, John Maynard Keynes has a visionary perspective on the economist’s calling:

“To the economists—who are the trustees, not of civilization, but of the possibility of civilization.”

F.A. Hayek, in many ways the antidote to Keynes’s destructive economic theory, is more grounded in explaining its purpose:

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

Art Carden provides a useful critique of planners who desire worthy ends but may be short-sighted in achieving them:

“The important question in social science is not really evaluating the moral quality of the outcome, but evaluating the institutions that produce the outcome.”

C.S. Lewis explains that the tyranny of man lording over man is the worst of all:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive… [for] those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Jonah Goldberg is even more succinct:

“An unwanted embrace from which you cannot escape is just a nicer form of tyranny.”

And Samuel Adams believed that liberty is spread by

“…an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”

My hope is that quotes like these circulate in the minds of all who love liberty, because F.A. Harper observed that “the man who knows what freedom means will find a way to be free.”

Related Posts

• The Bleeding Heart Conversation (0)
• Breaking Free from Paradigms (0)
• Review: Liberty Defined (0)
• Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 2: Service (0)
• Ron Paul on the Morality of Markets (0)

Can the current system be redeemed, or does it need to be replaced? My bias is towards replacement. First, I think the primary characteristics of the system (profit motive + greed = trouble) render it ‘unredeemable’, if that’s a word. Second, as a follower of Jesus I believe that the world to come (which we as the Body of Christ have a critical role to play in bringing it into being) is wholly other-wise. It’s not a tweaking of any current system, but an imaginative alternative. I won’t be satisfied with anything less…

Ignoring what I think is a wrongful understanding of “profit motive,” and given that capitalism isn’t so much a “system” as it is a measurement of the freedoms of interacting human beings, let’s assume capitalism (as we know it) needs to be replaced. I agree with Mike that “the world to come” will indeed be a wholly other type of “economy,” if it can be called that (I believe it can, since an economy is shorthand for the exchanges among human beings).

Mike and I disagree on what word to call it, and while my attempt is to redeem (“buy back”) the word capitalism from what we experience as consumerism today, we do agree that the Kingdom of God that brings about the World to Come is definitely “not of this world,” though it is of course for this world. (We both affirm the salvation Jesus offered was not just about individuals, and the Kingdom he announced was for here and now, not just the future.)

Mike is aware that “Christianity” has a bad reputation and  bad name, and rightfully so. But that doesn’t mean “Christianity” unredeemable, it means it must be re-found. Brian McLaren explores this in his new book. I’m encouraging the same type of quest for an economic system. “Capitalism” isn’t a dirty word, and it must be redeemed!

Without writing a treatise (I’ll do that someday, I hope), here’s a set of actions we can do to replace today’s capitalism with:

1. Abolish the Federal Reserve System (or any other central bank out there); if “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil,” how much more evil is the control of money in society?
2. Return to sound money; at first this means allowing competing currencies (rather than the government having a monopoly), but eventually that means precious metals will evolve as money.
3. Abolish government subsidies of all industries: agriculture, energy, and transportation, to name a few; nobody gets special favors at the expense of society.
4. While if #1 was accomplished, this one would be a natural outcome: withdraw all non-combatant troops from the 150+ nations the United States operates a military; also withdraw from any wars the U.S. has started (I think that’s all of them).
5. Abolish drug laws. All of them.
6. Make it very easy to cross borders. Just as easy as I can move from Pennsylvania to Virginia without much effort.
7. Abolish so-called “intellectual property.” If it isn’t a scarce resource you cannot “own” it. IP laws are unjust and benefit large corporations at the expense of innovators. It also is a waste of billions of dollars a year.

In reality I believe Kingdom people ought to work to make the state irrelevant and thus inoperative. But if we’re “designing a system” (as Mike seems to want to do), let’s start with the above action items.

Related Posts

• Progressives, Libertarians, and God’s Economy (1)
• Breaking Free from Paradigms (0)
• Capitalism, the Kingdom, and Just Money (2)
• The Root of All Evil, Part 1 (0)
• Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 2: Service (0)

Like many libertarians I, too, was a Glenn Beck-listening pseudo-libertarian conservative. During the presidential primaries in 2007 every Republican candidate was boasting about the robust “Bush economy” (which was somehow supposed to boost their own eligibility!). Ron Paul was the lone dissenter and explained how the economy was falsely indicating prosperity while precipitating a massive failure. Sadly, most people wrote him off as a pessimistic crank or a wacko politician. Yet because Glenn Beck trusted Ron Paul on the issue of economic matters (despite his disagreements with Ron Paul on foreign policy, Beck also predicted the economic collapse years ahead of time), I decided to give Ron Paul a fair hearing. I bought Revolution: A Manifesto on audiobook.

That was a turning point in my quest for truth. Ron Paul was my gateway drug to Austrian economics. He has the ability to richly inform the average reader about topics that aren’t mainstream, and often sends them on a journey to understanding a whole new way of thinking. He is the perfect introduction to liberty for those intimidated by the works of Hayek or Menger, yet he is thorough enough to be convincing.

Because there are very few people who are able to clearly articulate a vision for a consistent political ethic, Ron Paul carries an unrivaled appeal wherever he goes. As an elder gentleman this is a notable feature. He has the experience, wisdom, and intellect to explain what liberty looks like in all areas of life. In Liberty Defined he shares his perspective on 50 issues ranging from Abortion to Zionism. Some chapters (such as Campaign Finance Reform and Marriage) are a few pages long, while others are lengthier essays on Paul’s favorite issues (like Empire and Medical Care). Each is a home run defining liberty in its respective area.

It’s doubtful that left-leaning liberals and progressives are pining to read this book. But it will likely attract the semi-libertarian reader (tea party, anyone?) who wants to learn more about political issues. Some will be easily persuaded on some issues (like gun control) while being challenged or frustrated on others (such as marriage or foreign policy). While not every argument is thoroughly convincing, Paul succeeds in demonstrating a consistent libertarian outlook on life. For those looking for more, Paul suggests reading materials at the end of many chapters.

A possible deterrent for those like me who have become Austrian Addicts is the simplicity of the book. Many (if not all) of the issues are more thoroughly discussed on websites and other books that Paul himself endorses. It is easy to read because sites like mises.org, fee.org, and lewrockwell.com contain more thorough essays on the same topics (some by Ron Paul himself). If you’re looking for thorough material to boost your understanding of the Austrian tradition, Liberty Defined will disappoint. But lest you remove this one from your Amazon.com cart, consider the value in reading over 300 pages of lucid writing that describe liberty in 50 areas of politics. His beautifully worded prose is language every defender of liberty must learn. His arguments are fresh and ought to be repeated.

Liberty Defined is a great asset for both the learner and the teacher. The learner will find a broad array of starting points from which he can delve into more thorough material suggested in the book (and from the sites mentioned above). The teacher will find it a useful resource from which to advocate liberty ever more boldly and clearly. Both will enjoy reading the fruits of one’s lifelong passion for liberty and its implications for everyday life.

(Cross-posted at libertarianchristians.com)

Related Posts

• Some Inspiring Quotes (0)
• The Bleeding Heart Conversation (0)
• Progressives, Libertarians, and God’s Economy (1)
• Breaking Free from Paradigms (0)
• How Stupid Can Our Presidents Get? (0)

Jeffrey Tucker has turned a living hell upside down by writing a book about subverting the state by living outside its grip (as much as possible). Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Statist Quo is a pleasure to read. The week it was published I downloaded it for $0 on my iPad. I finished it in two days.

That never happens.

It was that good.

Go get it now. (Seriously, you need to download Jeffrey Tucker’s book! If you’re prone to physical books, buy it here.)

Why? Okay, let me tell you:

• Bourbon for Breakfast is not your typical book about liberty. It isn’t a treatise about why the state is evil (Mises.org has plenty of publications for that). It isn’t a compilation of all the reasons why libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism is a better world view or economic theory. Tucker has written a book that is about everyday life. It isn’t very “preachy,” but it has plenty to say about the rottenness of the state.
• This is a story book. That is, each chapter is an essay about everyday life, not about some pie-in-the-sky complaint about why seat belt laws or liquor laws are annoying. It is profound in both its content and delivery.
• You can read the book at your leisure, picking up where you left off without really “missing” anything. This is an attractive solution for those who are already committed to many other and perhaps thicker books, and don’t really want another book added to their nightstand. While you won’t want to put it down for very long, the arrangement of the book is capable of acquiescing to your need to come back later, without regret, if you must.
• Tucker’s writing is witty, insightful, and immensely practical. The morning after I read the chapter about hot water heaters and their temperature limitation, just a turn of the screw solved problems in our household. Now our dishes are clean, our showers are blissful, and I have the satisfaction of defying the state’s absurd home-invading laws.
• Each chapter is both fresh and refreshing. Tucker doesn’t bore the reader with similar stories that say roughly the same thing in a different manner. While some stories are interconnected or follow-ups to previous ones, each stands on its own.
• Libertarians can share this book with non-libertarian friends without coming off as proselytizing.

So what are you waiting for?!

Jeffrey Tucker was interviewed on Stossel last week. Watch the video clip below:

(Cross-posted at LibertarianChristians.Com)

Related Posts

• Progressives, Libertarians, and God’s Economy (1)
• Some Inspiring Quotes (0)
• Yes, Let’s Replace It (5)
• Review: Liberty Defined (0)
• The Bleeding Heart Conversation (0)

The book is broken down into three sections. The first is convincing the reader (or readers, since this is meant for married couples) why praying daily together will change their marriage. They cite research data, anecdotes from famous couples like Denzel and Pauletta Washington and other “normal” people, as well as providing Scriptural support to bolster the claims made by the studies and stories. They make a bold claim: lovemaking will get better, communication will get better, and hearts will be softened. Lives will be changed.

The second sections explains the 40 Day Prayer Challenge, both in its scope and practical tips on what to expect during the challenge. It is, after all, a challenge to pray a minimum 5 minutes every day as husband and wife. This section ends with a chapter on the power of prayer, with stories bolstered by much Scripture as support.

Finally the authors end with explaining how such an initiative to change a marriage will be met with challenges from the Devil, the one who wants to “dis” everything in our lives: discontent, disgust, disfunction. They also describe many specific positive outcomes that will result such as better financial habits, more giving, and how joy will overtake marriage your in general.

Does this book “work”? I guess that depends on your expectations, but if there is anything formulaic about Christian principles, it’s very clear that when we open up and become vulnerable with God in the presence of our lover, we become closer. “Love covers a multitude of sins,” and if we’re all sinners, we need much love.

Whether you should buy this book is up to whether you think you need to be convinced that prayer will work in your marriage. If you already believe it, then skim through this book at the library or on Amazon.com’s previews. If you don’t, perhaps this book can help you overcome some strongholds in your life that keep you from wanting to pray with your spouse. But I recommend this book only if you intend to take the 40 Day Prayer Challenge. Otherwise it’s a waste of time and a few bucks.

Now… guess I better take that challenge, eh?!

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com <http://BookSneeze®.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Related Posts

• Some Inspiring Quotes (0)
• Thoughts on the word “We” (0)
• Review: Little Star (0)
• Review: The Sacred Meal (0)
• Justice, Power, and Boundaries (5)

Impressively positive ideas such as “social responsibility,” “fairness,” “the public good,” and “equality” that nobody would ever oppose are used to attract people to give up their rights for the Progressive agendas. Slippery definitions of “common good” or “human rights” (their favorite phrase) justify usurping power from individuals to help “the most vulnerable among us”—the elderly, poor, unhealthy, or immigrant. Since Jesus sacrificed his life for the good of the world, we are to do the same. A society built on this principle of love for one’s neighbor is the only way to create a just society. And, so the argument goes, sacrifice is the best, or only, way to abide by this principle.

This is a savvy way to win the hearts and minds of Christians (and non-Christians) who desire justice. The invitation to “think beyond ourselves” is attractive to those who preach self-sacrifice as the ultimate way to love for one’s neighbor. In a politicized society where democracy is among the highest ideals, people feel warm and fuzzy about collective solutions to the world’s problems. Acting together is better than acting alone, and statements like the following are common:

“We need to fight terrorism.”

“We need comprehensive immigration reform.”

“We need to have a social safety net.”

“We need to stop people from doing drugs.”

“We need to provide health care for everyone.”

Phrases like these abound each day, if not coming from our friends or coworkers, then on the news. Everyone wants to live in a better world. Everyone has an opinion (or three). Everyone wants solutions. Yet Progressives relish a grandiose politically-defined collective called “we,” where power and authority reside at the top. Attaching the sentiments of democracy doesn’t negate the inherent pyramid structure of their arrangement. Even the most purely moral society cannot be arranged this way because those at the top will lack the sufficient knowledge necessary to successfully meet society’s needs. It can only produce an imitation because people become arbitrarily grouped and defined by the supposed “experts” influencing those in power. Individual rights are subsumed under the banner of social justice.

“We” is a loaded word with multiple meanings that can be used to satisfy both cooperative and coercive efforts. It can be delineated in various ways. “We” could be the people of a county, a state, a nation, or a continent. “We” could be the people of a racial segment of society. “We” could be the people of the Gulf States, or the East Coast, or the West Coast. Less geographically, “we” can be a little league, a country club, or a church. Americans are accustomed to thinking about “we” in terms of national identity, in part because since early childhood government schools have conditioned us to think in terms of national boundaries. But the scope of 300 million people make the term “we” a precious entity when the hands of power are concentrated at the top.

But is there a better way to achieve a just society than to define the word “we” by geopolitical identities? Is there a more ethical way for individuals to associate that not only respects their unique differences, but also allows for unity within the diversity of voices? Is there a peaceful way to come together for a common effort toward social justice? And if we find better ways to define “we,” can these groups be based on love and cooperation rather than on power and coercion in order to improve society effectively?

To answer this question, the Christian must think about how he regards his neighbor. Does he believe her to be a free and unique individual created to reflect one of the many diverse qualities of God’s image here on earth? If so, he must then respect her diverse and unique gifts and talents as complements to the rest of society, and permit her to associate with whomever she pleases. He cannot regard her as merely a single unit made to fit into the larger entity called “society” so that “society” can succeed? For him to scheme grandiose social arrangements by starting with “society” violates her by robbing her of respect and individuality.

The early church movement described in Acts 2 has been falsely labeled “Christian socialism.” What is ignored is the obvious point that the success of this new movement was due to the voluntary nature of the collective the early believers were placing themselves within. The Spirit of God guided them, to be sure, but there was nothing coercive about the movement. Everyone’s needs were met not because those involved had to but because everyone involved wanted to. In this way, doing justice is about more than good outcomes, it is about the ways in which those outcomes are brought about.

It is not a Christian duty to ensure that our subjective preferences are imposed upon those around us who may and do have very different preferences. It is our Christian duty to love our neighbor and fight injustice. To seek a just society means we must advocate for a free society where individuals are embraced as unique and worthy of being handed the power to their own lives. We must oppose a planned social order and seeking a free one because we know that groups that emerge spontaneously through free association are likelier to provide a social benefit because people are free to participate. Their benefit to the individual and to society depends largely on the extent to which these groups are joined voluntarily. Forcing people to belong to and identify with the collective effort of seeking social justice will create a society that is neither social nor just.

(This was cross-posted at LibertarianChristians.com.)

Related Posts

• Random Thoughts (0)
• “Who Are ‘We’?”: An Open Response to Brian McLaren (0)
• Some Inspiring Quotes (0)
• Review: Couples Who Pray (0)
• Justice, Power, and Boundaries (5)

Fundamentalism makes hell the core issue in salvation, and the fear of hell was one of the core driving forces behind evangelism. “Without hell,” a preacher would say, “There’s be no reason to evangelize.” Hell is the destructive and damning result of people ignoring the warning and refuse to join Christianity.

From where I sit, environmentalists do the same thing with respect to Creation care. It seems as though catastrophic effects of global warming seem to be the driving force behind encouraging people to join the cause. Perhaps you see it as a necessary warning (as do fundamentalists with hell), but most of us who are unconvinced of the problem see it as a fear-based tactic. I’ve done plenty of research from both sides, and to the best of my understanding, I’m not convinced global warming is as problematic as you believe it to be. I’m even less convinced in the so-called “solutions” to the problem.

If I didn’t believe in the traditional view of hell, that still doesn’t change my commitment to a missional lifestyle and evangelism. In fact, in many ways a new view on judgment and restoration means an even deeper commitment to sharing my faith with others. Likewise with Creation care, I see the threats of global destruction and catastrophic calamity as functionally “hell” for environmentalists, and I’m equally disturbed by the tactic.

Regardless of my position on the global warming debate, I’m still adamantly committed to care for the creation. We don’t do enough nor do we think of this as a Christian responsibility. But I think the “hellish nightmare” scenario that global warming advocates depict should be abandoned with haste in favor of a more restorative and biblical call for the care of our environment. I think you’ll find that those Christians who are skeptical of global warming will be unable to use what they see as a fear-mongering lie as an excuse to do nothing. Instead they might feel compelled to listen.

Related Posts

• To Hell with Rob Bell? (16)
• What is real environmentalism? (2)
• Stop Trying to Scare Us! (0)
• Yes, Let’s Replace It (5)
• Love Wins: Informal Comments, Part 2 (0)

Which makes me wonder: why do some Christians hold on to hell for “unbelievers”? What is attractive about a god who tortures people?

It seems to me that if Christians want to remain convinced in eternal conscious torment for the damned, they must do so reluctantly, against their own natural love for all peoples, and only through a great amount of wrestling, understanding that such a horrible truth must be embraced with great hesitation.

Nothing less comes very close to relishing the fate of “those other people.”

Related Posts

• To Hell with Rob Bell? (16)
• Love Wins: Informal Comments, Part 1 (0)
• Razing Hell is Heavenly (0)
• Environmentalist Hell (0)

Love Wins is beautiful. Literarily.

Nobody wants to read a “book about hell.” I’ve read at least a dozen books about the afterlife, some technical, some deeply theological, some narrative or conversational.

None of them is poetic.

After reading the first chapter with all of the reflective questions and rhetorical “what ifs” that Rob Bell has been sharing in all of the promotional material leading to the release of Love Wins, I’m reading the chapter about heaven.

Heaven is captivating. Rob Bell explains with poetic beauty what N.T. Wright says in Surprised by Hope with more biblical exposition and theological reflection. But Bell does so in a way that energizes our emotions toward a vision for what God is doing on earth in preparation for “the age to come.”

If you’re looking for a taste of what heaven will be like, look no further than Rob Bell’s expressive question and response chapter in Love Wins. It may lead to further reading, but it may also enthrall you enough to act within this present age with the creative expression we are to expect in the age to come.

Related Posts

• To Hell with Rob Bell? (16)
• Love Wins: Informal Comments, Part 2 (0)
• Razing Hell is Heavenly (0)
• Environmentalist Hell (0)
• Justice, Power, and Boundaries (5)

I’m excited because my own spiritual and ideological journey has taken me down a path that has led to a very interesting dichotomy. Eight years ago I was being drawn toward and have affirmed some progressive theology. But when it came to the social policies advocated by many social justice Christians, there seemed to be a disconnect. I soon realized that in order to assess ways to achieve socially just outcomes, the key is to develop an economic way of thinking.

I discovered that the Austrian school was not only engaging in its style and presentation, they carried with them the necessary skills to assess the social concerns I had. Austrian economists (and libertarian economists in general) have the verbal acuity to explain the makeup of our social DNA.

Art Carden is one of the most penetrating writers in the Austrian school. Art makes easy that which is often difficult to wrap one’s brain around, with fewer words and elegant prose. This week he wrote a piece called “Libertarian Compassionomics?” in his Forbes.com column which was picked up and responded to my Matt Zwolinski at BHL. I heartily recommend reading Art’s piece, then Matt’s, then Art’s response, and join the conversation.

Conversations are journeys. They lead us to truth, not because truth is the destination, but because it is found in the ongoing process that takes place among those who are passionately committed to the truth and to the conversation.

Sometimes the point of the journey isn’t the destination.

Related Posts

• Some Inspiring Quotes (0)
• Progressives, Libertarians, and God’s Economy (1)
• Breaking Free from Paradigms (0)
• To what extent should America “change”? (0)
• Review: Liberty Defined (0)

Needless to say the video and the upcoming release of this book has created a firestorm of controversy. John Piper briefly tweeted: “Farewell Rob Bell” with a link to Justin Taylor’s pre-book release comments on Rob Bell’s book. Taylor pays backhand compliments to Bell for laying his cards on the table rather than using “studiously ambiguous” terminology. Taylor and Piper are no doubt attempting to get a head start on the controversy before the book is even released. They will be happy to pronounce an indictment on Rob Bell’s theology once it is “on the table.” And rest assured, that indictment will come not a moment too late.

Rob Bell has dared to evaluate a theology that has troubled many Christians and non-Christians alike. Even those who believe in a hell of eternal torment probably don’t want to believe in such a fate for the unbelieving. They likely believe it “because the Bible says so” or because they’ve been given sufficient reason to believe that the character of God is not reduced by believing in such a doctrine. So why would a sincere and concerted effort to discover the biblical and justified view of the doctrine of hell be met with such contempt? What does John Piper, Justin Taylor, and others like them have to lose if Rob Bell is right? What is threatening about an alternate view of God’s justice and judgment that is so worthy of contempt?

If the traditional view of hell—that God sends people to an eternal conscious state of torment for not following Jesus—is indeed biblical and the true end of the sinful and unredeemed, then not only is the fate of all individuals at stake, but the very character and nature of God is at stake. If the traditional view of hell is unbiblical and not the reality for those who are not called “Christians,” the character and nature of God is still at stake. At the end of the day (or the end of time), the doctrine of hell has more to do with the character and nature of God and our relationship to God. Neither side of this debate would disagree that the stakes are high. God, not hell, is on trial here.

It is no ironic thing that the defenders of the traditional view of hell are already damning Rob Bell’s new view before the book has even been released. It is sad, really, and a poor example of Christian charity, much less a demonstration of brotherly love toward a fellow believer (so far they haven’t demoted Bell to apostate). Instead of seeing this initiative as silly or unfair, Taylor and Piper see it as being faithful to the testimony of the Bible. Do they really think Rob Bell doesn’t himself believe that he is being faithful to the biblical witness? Do they really think that Rob Bell has cast aside the Bible simply because he believes the Bible gets it wrong? Or will Bell simply say, “The Bible teaches us something different“? Most ironic is that Piper’s entire ministry is based on redefining the way we think about our relationship to God! Piper’s Christian hedonism is so contrary to the way we think God is, but teaches what I heartily affirm is how God is truly to be understood. It’s not about us, it’s about God.

This is why Rob Bell’s new book is such an important contribution to the debate over hell.

Kudos to Rob Bell. Even if he’s wrong.

[UPDATE: David Sessions has a great piece called "What the Rob Bell Controversy Says About John Piper." Julie Clawson also wrote about a recent experience related to the Rob Bell controversy, and shares her thoughts on hell.]

Related Posts

• Love Wins: Informal Comments, Part 2 (0)
• Love Wins: Informal Comments, Part 1 (0)
• Razing Hell is Heavenly (0)
• Environmentalist Hell (0)
• Yes, Let’s Replace It (5)

Little Star by Anthony DeStefano is a children’s book that teaches in clever ways the biblical adage “the first shall be last and the last shall be first.” The main character, a little insignificant star, always behind in brightness and significance, is surprised and delighted to know that he has the privilege and responsibility to shine a light on a new King, baby Jesus, who was born in a lowly stable under circumstances less-than desirable for a king.

The author tells this brief story by paralleling the feelings of a star who feels lonely and dejected and the experience of a king Jesus. By focusing his light on the baby Jesus, the unexpected type of king, Little Star begins to find his purpose, and shines ever so brightly. While the ending feels a bit anti-climactic for an adult reader, children will be able to connect the meaning of the story of Jesus and the star that many Christians place on their Christmas tree each year.

The artwork is good but not vibrant in all areas, and the typeface was non-unique and did not feel part of the design of the book. The story has plenty of potential but the ending could have been worked out a little more. While not destined to become a classic the story provides a cute but cliché way of telling the story of the Christmas tree star.

Disclaimer: “I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review.”

Related Posts

• Review: Couples Who Pray (0)
• Review: The Sacred Meal (0)

Through stories and anecdotes of her decades of experience, Nora Gallagher shows us in The Sacred Meal that communion and community are so intertwined that it is nearly impossible to celebrate the former without the latter. She writes from the vantage point of many decades of wrestling with the meaning of communion, so she does not engage the theological issues head-on (though she does acknowledge them). She looks past the debate and focuses on practice of communion, which is the purpose of the series. The highlight of the book is understanding and embracing the experience of practicing communion within community. Communion joins believers together as a sacred meal so that they can live a sacred faith.

Gallagher’s work will be disappointing to those looking for answers to the debates. For those willing and able to look past the theological details and embrace the experience as a liberating practice of the Christian faith, she offers a fresh perspective any reader will appreciate.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com <http://BookSneeze®.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Related Posts

• Review: Couples Who Pray (0)
• Review: Little Star (0)

“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Lev. 19:15

It doesn’t take much time to notice that the world is much darker than what God created it to be. Our world today is a far cry from Eden, a place of peace—often described as shalom in the Hebrew Scriptures—where humans walked with God and knew God intimately. From the beggar on the street to the rich man with no love in his life, the shalom of God often feels distant. There is poverty, hunger, slavery, and oppression all over the world.

The Scriptures reveal to us God’s plan to restore shalom. When Jesus enters the story, he reveals “the kingdom of God,” a peaceful kingdom that stands in contrast to the violent kingdoms of this world. Jesus’ own actions were peaceful and non-aggressive. He personally served the poor, left his own family to serve the needs of others, and made company with the outcasts at his own social and cosmic expense. He called on others to voluntarily sacrifice their lives and follow him. His followers were expected to be beacons of light throughout the world, shining love and peace wherever they went.

As followers of Jesus today, we must address the lack of peace and justice in the world with Jesus as our model. Our task is to seek peace, restore brokenness, and bring to justice those who trample on others. Our calling is to also enroll others to join in this endeavor. Yet with all things involving human beings, there are limits to what we can do with and to others. If we are to engage the world, Christians must ask a very critical question: what boundaries are there to seeking justice?

In order to answer this question appropriately we must deal with the imbalance of power in society. Injustice stems from abuses of power. Libertarians and Christians believe that no human has the right to exercise power over another human by means of force or coercion. In order to truly achieve justice, individual freedom must be promoted. Justice itself hinges on the freedom of individuals to exercise their respective wills. Denying this freedom not only tramples human dignity, it pushes justice farther away.

So then, what should the Christian’s attitude be toward the State’s role in the fight for justice? A consistent ethic of peace would have us exercise the power of government only to punish those who have offended the natural right of freedom. Outside of this we have no right to impose our will upon another. If each person is God’s image-bearer with unsurpassable worth, we are duty-bound to not trample upon them, whether on our own or by leveraging the State to suit our preferences. Leo Tolstoy believed that “Christianity, with its doctrine of humility, of forgiveness, of love, is incompatible with the State, with its haughtiness, its violence, its punishment, its wars.” Christians should resist looking to the State for power to fulfill the mandates of the gospel.

Those who partner with the State in order to achieve a measure of justice have an impoverished imagination. Instead of advancing the kingdom of God peacefully, they seek to restore justice by controlling the rights and property of others. If it is truly the vocation, calling, and responsibility of the people of God to not only live out but carry out God’s justice, why would we want to delegate that responsibility to an entity whose primary mechanism of operation is threat of force? Christians must think long and hard about how they regard the State.

The Kingdom of God is about greatness through servanthood, loving by sacrificing. Changing the world is not done with might or power but through love and sacrifice. This is why we ought to reject government-centered solutions to social justice.

Christians have succumbed too often to the temptation of power, believing that if we are on God’s side, our power over others is justified. It is time that Christians embrace the Kingdom of the Cross (driven by servanthood, sacrifice, and love) and abandon the Kingdom of the Sword (driven by force, violence, and coercion). The power of the gospel to change the world is not made manifest through violence but through the freedom to love and serve others.

(This post was originally written in 2009 and was revised and republished at libertarianchristians.com.)

Related Posts

• Breaking Free from Paradigms (0)
• Progressives, Libertarians, and God’s Economy (1)
• Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 2: Service (0)
• Reflections on Economics, Social Justice, and the Imago Dei (0)
• Unique Privileged Stance (0)

Abortion.

Yes, you read that correctly. While the bulk of social justice advocates are more permissive about things like gay marriage, marijuana use, and sexual ethics, on one issue they are more conservative.

Why? Cited is the author of the study who published the statistics:

Because young adults have grown up in a world of widely available contraceptives, pregnancy is generally seen as a failure to take responsibility for one’s choices.  So, in many cases, young adults feel that abortion amounts to an unwillingness to accept the consequences for one’s own choices rather than a so-called tragic moral dilemma.  “Taking responsibility for one’s behavior” has great potential as a message for increasing the valuing of life among young adults.

Read the entire article here.

Related Posts

• Why I am Pro-Choice (5)
• Why I’m Pro-Choice and Liberals aren’t (2)
• Justice, Power, and Boundaries (5)
• Breaking Free from Paradigms (0)
• Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 2: Service (0)

In contrast to the overly emphasized and individualistic go-to-heaven-when-you-die gospel, social gospel advocates focus on the broader purpose of Jesus’ coming to earth: to establish a final Kingdom that will reign in peace through love. Jesus’ kingdom not only stood in contrast to the Roman method of establishing peace through violence, it was a subversive challenge to the imperial injustice of the so-called Pax Romana. Caesar was not Lord. Jesus was Lord. Caesar was not the Prince of Peace. Jesus was the Prince of Peace. Jesus proclaimed the good news that “the Kingdom of God is here!” He started a true living-and-breathing social movement based on peace, love, and mutual cooperation.

(Brief aside: historically, the Social Gospel movement of the Walter Rauschenbusch variety was so obsessed with the social implications of Jesus’ message that they naively embraced unethical ideals such as redistributionism, socialism, and in some cases communism. Instead of seeking truly social and peaceful ways to change the world, they tended to embrace coercive methods to achieve their ends. This is not a tenable position for a libertarian Christian, because the Rauschenbusch gospel is one that is neither social nor personal.)

In some respects we can view the Kingdom of God as “God’s economy.” But this does not mean we will find in the New Testament a prescription for legislative structures by which society ought to be run. Instead, we will find something more valuable than legal remedies or answers to the debate over economic distribution. We will find answers to the core problem of sin through Jesus’ demonstration of the Kingdom of God. God’s economy is about the health of human relationships, not the ideal institutional structures. To misunderstand this is a recipe for dangerously applying Jesus’ Kingdom ethics to an unjust and inadequate institutional framework. As my friend Art Carden has put it, “The important question in social science is not really evaluating the moral quality of the outcome, but evaluating the institutions that produce the outcome” (emphasis mine).

If Christians are to proclaim God’s economy and social order, developing an economic way of thinking is critical to proposing truly progressive social reforms. This is where libertarians—particularly those of the Austrian persuasion—can contribute enormously to the goals of social justice. Yet most progressive Christians have not even considered an economic way of thinking; some are even opposed to it!

Austrian economists will quickly point out that economics is fundamentally about observing human action and explaining how the world works. Developing an economic way of thinking can prevent us from seeking social reforms that produce ersatz outcomes at the expense of human dignity and moral development. Invoking Bible verses about treatment of the poor (such as Proverbs 22:1) to call for higher taxes on the wealthy or raising the minimum wage does not justify theft or magically reverse the laws of supply and demand. For all their talk about social justice, progressives prescribe cures for social ills that are neither social nor just.

Progressives believe the popular myth that the U.S. operates under pure capitalism, and have thus concluded that economic injustice inheres from advocating freedom. They rail against injustice, but they have mistaken the identity of the enemy. Instead of considering that the fundamental idea behind free markets is that they foster cooperation and mutually beneficial trade, they treat them as if they were the enemy of justice. So freedom becomes the scapegoat, and the sword becomes the savior.

Our economic system is unjust not because it is too free, but because its institutional structure benefits the politically well-connected. Progressive ideas like the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and labor laws are all anti-liberty policies that have hurt the people they purport to assist. This is why the fight for social justice is not won by sleeping with the enemy, but by choosing to build for God’s Kingdom. Progressives mistakenly believe the state exists to guard against economic inequality and protect the underdog. Libertarians rightly understand the state for what it is: violent, oppressive, and a destructive force in society.

Progressive and libertarian Christians alike can learn something valuable from each other. Libertarians (especially libertarian Christians) should not see social justice as a dirty word. It is a social aim that Jesus valued and sought, and his followers should do the same. Progressives Christians need to stop looking to the state to fix the social sins of greed, oppression, and racism because it cannot cure those ills.

The hope of the world is not in tweaking the kingdoms of this world. The hope of the world is Jesus, and only through the peaceful advancement of his Kingdom will society change for the better.

Related Posts

• Breaking Free from Paradigms (0)
• To what extent should America “change”? (0)
• Political Leanings (2)
• Yes, Let’s Replace It (5)
• The Bleeding Heart Conversation (0)

She further opines:

Once taxes are lowered — even if unwisely, and even if the results are devastating — it is almost impossible to raise them again.

I have two questions:

1. Has Neff even met a politician before?!

2. Why are spending contractions never even considered as a plausible question, let alone an alternative?

Related Posts

• Tax Plan Confusion (De-Briefing Progressives) (1)
• Thoughts on the word “We” (0)
• Progressives, Libertarians, and God’s Economy (1)
• Three Ways to Get Money (1)
• Sunday School with Jon Stewart (0)

Chuck Collins, senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, wrote and article called “Moral Measure of a Tax Plan” today in Sojourner’s God’s Politics blog. It’s a classic example of the assumption that wealth belongs to “society” and that it is the job of our wise overlords to confiscate most of it and distribute it as they see fit.

Here’s his logic:

By extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and instituting a significantly weakened estate tax, more wealth will flow into the hands of the richest one percent — and within that to the richest one-tenth of one percent….

As wealth concentrates, a hyper-organized segment of this wealth-holder class uses its wealth, privilege, and power to change the rules of the economy to further concentrate wealth and privilege. (emphasis mine)

So when does letting people keep their own money count as a “flow” of wealth to the richest in the country? And since when does taxing a dead wealthy person almost half their remaining wealth (which has already been taxed over and over again) considered “immoral”?

The problem is not the wealthy keeping their money. The problem is their legal ability to buy political power and control with it.

To be sure, the state is very involved in a transfer of wealth from the middle class and poor… but that mechanism is not the reduction of progressive taxation, but the mechanism of inflation through the state-sanctioned central bank, the Federal Reserve.

Related Posts

• Spending Contractions (De-Briefing Progressives) (1)
• Thoughts on the word “We” (0)
• Progressives, Libertarians, and God’s Economy (1)
• Three Ways to Get Money (1)
• Sunday School with Jon Stewart (0)

Ron Holland wrote on LewRockwell.com:

It is time to open the closed doors of misinformation and lies from institutions ranging from the Social Security Administration, the Federal Reserve, Treasury and Fort Knox to Wall Street and the global banking establishment. From TSA and Homeland Security to wasteful spending and corruption at all levels of government and special interests like big oil, big pharma, the military industrial complex and the agricultural and food cartels which threaten the health of Americans.

Long live freedom! Long live WikiLeaks!

Related Posts

• Why I Care (14)
• Progressives, Libertarians, and God’s Economy (1)
• Why I’m Electing Not to Vote (1)
• Breaking Free from Paradigms (0)
• Talking Freedom in Montauk (0)

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, diagnosing it incorrectly and then applying the wrong remedies.”

Random Posts

• The “I want it now!” society (0)
• Apple Certified Professional – Aperture (2)
• My Census Experience (0)
• Michelle Obama tells students to “give back” (2)
• The Rest of the Book: Final Thoughts (3)

I recently read this article interviewing economist Doug Casey on why he doesn’t vote for ethical reasons. It’s takes about ten minutes to read, but it accurately sums up why I don’t feel voting is “my thing.” Furthermore, from a Christian perspective, issues of justice and peace ought to be at the forefront of our hearts, minds, and actions. But beyond the most local of levels, voting is capitulation to and participation in a wholly corrupt system. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

I regret voting for John McCain because he really didn’t represent me, nor was he a candidate that much different from Barack Obama. I reluctantly voted for him (in part due to my fascination with Sarah Palin… which now has passed), though in retrospect I wish I hadn’t because at least my conscience would be clear. But both were and are big-government progressives who are more about bigger government than they were about freedom.

I am proud to have the opportunity to vote. I am proud of America. I believe America is great, not because of the government but in spite of it. Americans love freedom, they work hard, and the make things. But voting in and of itself is only one manifestation of how we can affect change. I simply don’t believe it is as valuable as other methods.  It’s not wrong to vote; it’s just not for me.

The entrepreneur that creates and accumulates wealth is a far greater force for progress than his votes could accomplish. The business that creates jobs and uses the excess to give more (not “give back” which makes no sense) to the community by way of charity does more than the votes of its CEOs would. The family that lives frugally and lives within its means does more for the economy than a politician does. And the Church members who dedicate all of their energies away from politics and instead toward serving others do more to advance the gospel than their collective vote. The toil of voting seems much less rewarding than wisely preserving and stewarding the resources we have been blessed with.

But on the other hand, I am voting. I am voting against both candidates. In abstinence I am choosing to endorse neither party nor either’s direction for America. In many ways I’m doing what Church members who vote “no” for a pastoral candidate are doing.  I’m dealing with three options (yes, there are more than two options!). Another analogy might be the debate about which is the best “safe sex” method (for non-married people). Abstinence is the forgotten “candidate.”

As a Christian I believe strongly that the gospel is “social.” That is, salvation is not merely personal but communal, and we are called to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8). It’s a very important feature of Christianity. So if I vote it ought to be out of a sense of purpose, not a “hope it works” kind of way. So my choice not to vote isn’t glib or throwing my hands in the air in despair or frustration. My vote to not vote is a strong stance against warfare and against welfare, and against the parties that endorse either or both. It is a refusal to participate in a culture of corruption.

The second point—while bizarre on the one hand—should make the most sense to any of us on the pro-liberty side of politics. The fact of the matter is that most people don’t think through the ramifications of who they approve of being in power. They don’t think how deficits, high taxes for the wealthy, and “free health care” really affect their lives. My take is: they need to. And if that means for eight years Obama and the Democrats get everything they want, the laundry will stink at the end and liberty will be embraced. Besides, Republicans won’t change much in Washington anyway, since they have grown government more than Clinton and Carter (two Democrats rather despised by conservative). So the country needs to know what it is getting itself into, and this slow trickle into fascism doesn’t alarm anybody. It needs to. So I say to the so-called Progressives, “have at it!”

Liberty will win in the end. Voting isn’t the only way that happens. If you question me in person with various arguments, I probably won’t always have a rock solid rebuttal. But I feel no less convinced that voting isn’t the only way to make change happen. A phrase Obama used in his own campaign in 2008 was “we are the people we’ve been waiting for.” Unfortunately, voting is an act that negates such an attitude toward social change.

Related Posts

• Why I Care (14)
• Political Leanings (2)
• Justice, Power, and Boundaries (5)
• Progressives, Libertarians, and God’s Economy (1)
• Long Live WikiLeaks! (1)

I won’t recount my journey here, since that is not the point of this. But the short of it is that from Bob Murphy’s book I jumped to Thomas Sowell, then finally I read some Ron Paul, and from there found some very enthralling reading at the site of Lew Rockwell, who is the founder of the Mises Institute, where Bob Murphy is adjunct scholar. So I began subscribing to the RSS feeds of the above sites, as well as Tom Woods’ and Bob Murphy‘s. Along with the Capitalism book, Bob has written many many articles at mises.org, and has written a short book called Chaos Theory [PDF], a book that—if you’re willing to consider the unimaginable—will change the way you think about a peaceful existence in society (if you don’t think you’re ready for that, try Butler Shaffer’s Boundaries of Order). I even posted a response on my blog to some spiritual thoughts he had on his.

Anyway, earlier this year Bob mentioned in a post on his blog that he wanted to switch from Blogger to WordPress some day, and wanted to revamp his site a little bit, but didn’t want to spend like a drunken politician. As a WordPress fanatic myself, and one who could manage a little bit of web design as a hobby, I made him an offer, and he accepted.

Now his website has been migrated to WordPress. The site was not a complete redesign, though I do think the new layout is less clunky and is “cleaner.” A few glitches along the way taught me a few things, both about web design and about dealing with famous people. Bob has been incredibly patient and gracious throughout the whole process (I don’t want to sound like I was a total screwup, we just had a few minor unforeseeable glitches), and has been a pleasure to work with. It was really weird talking on the phone with somebody whose voice I’ve heard in dozens of lectures over the past few years.

I do have to mention, though, that without a very good friend, Jonathan Ober, I could not have done as well as the site has turned out. Jon is a true friend and spent plenty of time showing me a few things I hadn’t yet learned about WordPress and the particular theme I chose for Bob’s site. While I managed to get quite a bit done on my own, Jon was a true godsend for those times where I was scratching my head.

So yes… I can do some web design, but I’m not a coder or an engineer. My friend Jon was that side of things for me, when I needed it. And Jon does freelance design as a full time job… my level of interest in websites is just a hobby to make a little extra money.

If you would like to employ my services, please leave a comment in this post and I will contact you by email!

Related Posts

• Books on Deck (1)
• Does Jesus Negate Economics? (1)

With Brian’s permission, I am reprinting the second letter below:

Brian,

I want to first thank you for the thoughtful response to my questions, and for your time in addressing them. I’m grateful for your insight, and appreciative of your “learner’s spirit.” Both of us have in common that we’re very willing to be wrong, even if we’re convinced we’re pretty well on track with something.

The quick points first:

I don’t believe you were (or are) advocating communism or socialism. My point was merely that such schemes of price control are not components of free societies but of those whose goal is to orchestrate good behavior among citizens for particular ends. F.A. Hayek identified this problem as “the pretense of knowledge.” And even while you are only talking about a particular policy, energy is a critical and integral component to just about every facet of our lives, and would be an enormous intervention (that’s not necessarily problematic, just a point I was making).

I also didn’t assume you believe that “all would be well” with the right laws or a good clean energy policy. As you correctly noted, today’s solutions typically produce tomorrow’s problems. Given the knowledge problem (noted above), and the issue of “we” I explain below, I’m unconvinced that repricing is a viable solution to the energy problem.

Last (of the quick things), when I wrote, “I cannot help but laugh at the notion that the right laws will actually make our society better,” I wasn’t implying that there are no such things as good laws. I was merely pointing out that laws can only do so much and laws that “make society better” come with a cost. Some laws clean things up on the outside, but cause resentment and bitterness among people groups that might have been reconciled by different means. All remedies have unseen consequences.

Now to the heart of the conversation. As I reflected over the past few days upon what you said, I think I’ve identified more of my core concerns over the use of the word “we.” You and I probably agree that each of us has to work within the social and political structures within which we live. But I also would guess we agree that settling for the status quo can be dangerous if we accept it for what it is, rather than challenge its existence, what it stands for, and the destruction it is wreaking.

A large component of justice is the proper use of power. I’m sure there is more to the definition of justice (as there always is), but with regards to power and authority, how such power is delegated and implemented is very key. And this is where the “we” gets really messy.

“We” can be delineated in a million different ways. “We” could be the people of a county, a state, a nation, or a continent. “We” could be the people of a racial segment of society. “We” could be the people of the Gulf States, or the East Coast, or the West Coast. However “we” is defined, the larger the group, the less meaningful it becomes. Americans are accustomed to thinking about “we” in terms of national identity, in part because we are conditioned to think in terms of “nations.” Yet on a national scale of 300 million people, “we” becomes a precarious entity because the hands of power are concentrated at the top. Phrases such as “shared action” become very diluted the more and more people we include. It also means that more voices become unheard and their needs go unaddressed in the process.

When power gets concentrated by placing it in the hands of those who are at the top, “we” becomes meaningless and justice is sacrificed for political ends. It also invites corporations to lobby for power, thus resulting in Big Retail, Big Oil, and perhaps eventually Big Corn and Big Wind. Volleying the hands of power may result in gain for the Big Guy, but I doubt either of us likes the idea of “Big Business.” But when power is spread throughout society in such a way that more and more people have control over their own lives and property (and those property rights are protected), unjust authority and power structures begin to erode, and the term “we” becomes meaningful and practicable. The closer people are to those whom they’ve delegated authority and power, the less likely it is that those in power will abuse it.

With respect to energy policy specifically, I imagine you’ll agree that asking “why?” is a good start to the dirty energy problem. For instance, when the problem stated is that dirty energy is cheap, the immediate question to me is, “Why is it cheap?” More specifically, “What structural features allow it to be and keep it inexpensive so that alternatives are unprofitable?” Other questions might be, “Why is alternative energy so expensive, and why does it take an immense amount of capital to invest in it?”

If we can get to the bottom of why dirty energy is so cheap, and eliminate the incentives for it—tax structures, corporate welfare, and perverse incentives for oil companies—we might actually be able to see clean energy compete naturally, eventually putting dirty energy out of business, or minimize its usefulness. As it is, Big Oil enjoys a cozy relationship with the federal government. I think neither of us believes this is healthy, wise, or just. But rigging the economic structure of energy the opposite direction will likely have different problems (and maybe one’s we’re willing to live with), but is simply patchwork to the very torn and tattered fabric of energy policy.

You said you’ve studied this issue for quite a while and have acquaintances and friends with keen insight and knowledge. That’s great, and the truth needs to be spoken. But those folks “in the know” will not be the same folks making legislation (unless these people you know are politicians!). The incentives of a politician is not to have a cleaner earth, but to be re-elected and achieve political ends. They may say they care about the environment, and it may indeed be their heart’s desire. But power is an easy corrupter, and compromise (which is not always bad) often results in unintended negative consequences. Barack Obama campaigned on change, but he only has so much influence as President. I always cut politicians some slack because they can only follow through to advocate for what they promised. Actualized promises are few and far between (which is why I’m not a big fan of federal government solutions).

You are right that our Christian identity does not give us “exemption from our responsibility to our neighbors for the common good.” And it certainly does “obligate us to be involved with real passion and energy.” Our interactivity ought to lead us to mutual responsibility, which is why I typically advocate a more decentralized approach to where decisions are made and where power resides. The more centralized the power, the less likely justice will be actualized. There are possible exceptions, of course, but I hope you would agree that when people have their own power taken away from them (rather than their willingly delegating it), justice is not near.

Many thanks for your time!

Doug

Related Posts

• Thoughts on the word “We” (0)
• A Conversation With Brian McLaren (0)
• Yes, Let’s Replace It (5)
• Environmentalist Hell (0)
• To Hell with Rob Bell? (16)

I read Brian’s blog daily, and have frequently emailed him questions that he has answered publicly. Recently he started a series (that was cross-posted on the Sojourners website) called “A Clean Energy Conversation.” His main point is that we need to begin a conversation about the problem of “dirty energy.” While I had some basic economic concerns to his general proposals in Part 1, I wrote a passionate email to Brian the very same day:

I just read your post on Clean Energy Conversion, and honestly it really hit me the wrong way. I don’t disagree with point #1. I’m personally looking into solar energy for my house and I drive a fuel-efficient vehicle. In theory my belief about clean energy is that the sooner, the better. The question is how does this occur?

So what’s my beef? It’s in one two-letter word: “we.” Who is “we”? As you always point out to your critics, their words have so much “loaded” in them that it’s difficult to respond without completely talking past each other. I feel like progressives are beginning to suffer from something I call “we-dolatry.” Instead of placing emphasis on the individual, the emphasis is placed on the collective. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that approach, but what happens when the “we” makes the individual subordinate? The philosophy of “we” strips away individuality away without realizing it (because I know that’s not what you intend to do).

So when you say, “we must re-price dirty energy,” there are a few unspoken assumptions that I really struggle with:

1. “we”—whoever that is—know what to re-price it at; this strikes me as naive at best and arrogant at worst. If we’ve learned anything the past 100 years of modern history, it’s that human beings do not know how to correctly “price” something on a large scale that is beneficial for society. It’s always led to mass poverty and social injustice.

2.  “we” means everybody in our society; what is unsaid is the belief that a collective “we” acts, but this cannot be true. At best our elected leaders “act” on our behalf, but what about the untold thousands or millions that are harmed in the process? Humans are not individual automata, they are individuals with subjective preferences. “Love your neighbor” means in part to respect those preferences. If they are immoral, wrong, or dangerous, they ought to be addressed, but I cannot help but laugh at the notion that the right laws will actually make our society better

So the question is, Who is “we”? And how exactly do “we” make decisions? Since we don’t live in a democracy, what constitutes “we”? And even if “we” act, how do we know that’s best for everyone? By what standard do we measure whether or not “we” have made the right decision? With respect to “wisely investing” in the dividends of re-pricing, I must ask, “How do we know that we are wisely investing?” What mechanism is going to tell us? A committee? The government? A group of really concerned citizens? The next election?

I know you will address these in more detail, but it bothers me that the solution is always begun with “we” because it speaks of the assumption that somebody (or a group of somebodies) knows how “we” ought to do things in society. I simply cannot agree with  the belief that if we have the right laws, the right regulations, the right amount of taxes, the right [whatever] to orchestrate society in a peaceful way, then all will be well. Why? Because large-scale orchestration of society has never worked. Invoking biblical support sounds great to win over Christians, but it strikes me as aligned with the constitutional approach to the scriptures.

I hope I’m not coming off too strong, but I shed tears over the attitudes of people who arrogantly think they know how to run society, because the people in society without a voice suffer. I don’t think you’re arrogant by any definition, but it appears as if you still are okay advocating for social change in the same way. I’m looking forward to your series. I hope I’m convinced a bit more than my fears outline here. Every time I read stuff like this, I think of Greg Boyd’s statement to Jim Wallis in a debate a few years ago: “I don’t see how our commitment to Christ gives us a unique privileged stance on having an extra wisdom to tell government, ‘Here’s what you should do.’ The hope of the world isn’t found in our tweaking the government the right way.”

I also assume your ability to read the unspoken assumptions in my own questions (a skill I am thankful you have!), so if you respond to my email at all, I’d be happy to be challenged in those assumptions.

Related Posts

• “Who Are ‘We’?”: An Open Response to Brian McLaren (0)
• Yes, Let’s Replace It (5)
• Environmentalist Hell (0)
• To Hell with Rob Bell? (16)
• Breaking Free from Paradigms (0)

The book is divided into three parts. The first part reviewing the landscape of the traditional view of hell, God’s wrath, and judgment (and believe me, she makes it known that there is way more to this doctrine than who goes where when they die!). The second part offers an alternative viewpoint of hell, God’s wrath, and judgment, while the third part offers what she titles a “New View of Hell.” While I’m only finished with the first part, what strikes me about her writing is the way she weaves personal conversations with her students and her friends. It’s a casual-yet-serious discussion about the nature of God and the problems that the eternal conscious torment theology bring to the table. Not one to get off on tangents to every possible objection raised early in the book, she cleverly “teases” the reader with brief answers while promising a fuller explanation to come. While it might sound like an odd description for a non-fiction book, in a weird way I feel like I’m reading a Daniel Silva spy novel, on the edge of my seat, not wanting to put it down (except to write this blog post)!

What I enjoy most about Razing Hell is the honest and oftentimes frustrating questions about God, justice, love, and forgiveness. She isn’t so much declaring “here’s what the Bible says” (though she certainly has opinions about what the Bible says) as she is openly questioning and critically wrestling with the traditional view. She even assures us (though she keeps teasing us by leaving the details for a future chapter) that she is not trying to “take hell away from us.” Whether I agree with her conclusions or not, I can’t wait to see how this plays out!

I wrote my Master’s Thesis paper on the afterlife, and having read dozens of articles and books on the topic, I can already say that Baker’s contribution to this heated topic will remain a major player for honest inquisitors. Even those who would not agree with her conclusions have some wrestling to do.

Related Posts

• To Hell with Rob Bell? (16)
• Love Wins: Informal Comments, Part 2 (0)
• Love Wins: Informal Comments, Part 1 (0)
• Environmentalist Hell (0)
• Justice, Power, and Boundaries (5)

One such paradigm most of us are familiar with is the left-right/liberal-conservative spectrum of thought (both politically and theologically). We could imagine it as a line being drawn in the sand, and on one end is the liberal left, and on the other end is the conservative right. When asked where we stand on a particular issue or system of beliefs, most of us place ourselves somewhere along that line. We also picture others somewhere along that line in relationship to our own “point” on it. We say things like, “He’s a little more liberal than I am.” Or, “She’s a little too far to the right politically for my tastes.”

But what if we take the line in the sand, and instead of picturing people along a spectrum of left/liberal or right/conservative, we begin thinking a bit more three-dimensional. What if a better position were somewhere hovering above the line, suspended midair, in a way that defies the traditional dualistic tendency? What if we began thinking in ways that didn’t place people on a line that allowed us to assume so many things about them based on where we place them? What if we thought more deeply about the way we understand theology and politics, and instead of trying to find a “middle ground” that made sense or was a decent compromise, we searched for a higher place that accurately described what it is we are all about?

Those familiar with Brian McLaren’s book A New Kind of Christian will notice that I used the same illustration as he does to describe how we think in a duality, and how this can be limiting to our view of the world. While McLaren used that illustration to talk about new conceptions in faith and Christianity, the same analogy works for the political paradigm of thought. This became apparent to me about three years ago when I became quite interested in the implications for Christ-followers to carry out social justice as part of the gospel message. I read books like God’s Politics by Jim Wallis. I read articles by  Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren, and others calling Christians to stop thinking only about the afterlife and begin living out Jesus’ mission to transform society. Christ’s life-changing movement was to change how we interact socially with one another. If Christianity was about anything, it was about revolutionizing the world with the love of Jesus, which started with the poor, downtrodden, and outcasts in society. So from a theological perspective, this all sounded great. I’m on board. But the practical solutions being proposed by these same people didn’t feel right to me. Something didn’t seem completely justifiable in the way they were going about how to accomplish their ends. Question upon question kept piling up in my mind, and soon it became clear to me that the bulk of the answers I needed could be found in economics.

So while I was still in seminary, with plenty to read, write, and dialogue with, I went to search for some economic texts that would help me on my quest. For most folks, economics sounds terribly boring (and some of it is). But I discovered early on that economics has less to do with gibberish we hear from financial gurus on TV and more to do with how human beings act and interact with one another. Yes, there’s the financial aspect to economic theory, but at its core, I found that economic study is about human action. The great economist seeks to understand how the world works. So if I wanted to change the world as a Christian, I needed to know how the world works, so my commitment to social justice would be ethical and effective.

What I found incredible about economic philosophy, particularly from the Austrian school of economic thought, was that it felt like I was emerging from the left-right line in the sand, and finding a higher place of understanding. Not only were these explanations about life more invigorating, and made an immense amount of common sense, the practical critique in contemporary politics was the same: politics and the social order today are very messed up, and there are better answers out there.

Every paradigm is imperfect, and every explanation of paradigms is imperfect. But in a fallen world it is imperative for us to remember that all ways of describing the world are imperfect and in constant need of revision. Hence the need to revise the duality of liberal/conservative. And even the three-dimensional explanation of life will not always be the best, and others will be proposed.

But whatever the illustration we use, there is a freshness and vitality to breaking free from the liberal/conservative paradigm that plagues our political dialogue. If we can break free from thinking in a dualistic fashion, there’s a fresh new air to breathe above the ground. It might actually help us think more clearly!

Related Posts

• Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 2: Service (0)
• Why I Care (14)
• To what extent should America “change”? (0)
• Justice, Power, and Boundaries (5)
• Progressives, Libertarians, and God’s Economy (1)

As I descended down the stairs I heard my wife say, “Be nice!” Okay, I’ll try, I thought. To my surprise, this lady wasn’t rude, wasn’t belligerent, and was actually rather friendly. She said she was sent because there was “missing information” on my Census form. I informed her that I filled out all that I was comfortable filling out (which, by the way was the number of people living here and our first names). She asked what that information was, and I told her. She attempted to ask me several other questions, and I said I was uncomfortable giving that information to her, and she didn’t pursue the issue any further!

There was something ironic about her presence at my front door. There was no vehicle present that she travelled in. I asked her where her car was, and she said that they are asked not to park in homeowner’s driveways out of respect for their property (I don’t think she actually used the word “property,” but it was implied in her answer). I thought this was a bit strange, and I wanted to rhetorically ask, “So they want you to ask me questions about my life and home information, but they won’t let you park in my driveway out of respect?! Isn’t that kind of a twisted sense of respect?” But I only made a passing sarcastic remark about how silly such a rule really was. She laughed with me, then offered me the phone number of the local bureau. While I declined, saying I could look it up if I needed it, I glanced at the paper she was offering, with the phone number written on it. I did a double take, and asked to see the number again so I could memorize it.

Guess what the first three digits were… 666

Not joking whatsoever.

Random Posts

• Michelle Obama tells students to “give back” (2)
• Sweet Eternal Truths (1)
• Stop Trying to Scare Us! (0)
• Expecting from God (0)
• Rediscovering Values: Analysis Part 1 (Introduction) (3)