The Worm and God's economics

Not wanting to weigh too heavily into the whole election process but... i would just like to comment on whether as Christians we should vote on what is good for "us" or on what is good for the whole country (especially those who are less fortunate)

I have reposted this artical that can be found at the The Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College


Gods economics
by John McKinnon

“The topic of economics is exceedingly difficult to talk about in most First World churches, more taboo than politics or even sex. Yet no aspect of our individual lives and corporate lives is more determinative of our welfare. And few subjects are more frequently addressed in our scriptures.”1

Economics is like a game of musical chairs. There are not enough chairs in the world for everyone to have as many as they would like. But rather than play music and race to the nearest chair, we have an auction, and those with the most money can buy their chairs while those without are left standing.

Assuming that Earth’s resources are scarce (not enough to satisfy everyone’s wants, as opposed to everyone’s needs) and that there are competing uses for them, economics is essentially about determining who gets what. The dominant economic system in the world today claims the best way to allocate these scarce resources is through the market – supply and demand. That is, whoever pays the most gets the goods. Hence the situation where the rich world spends more on ocean cruises than it would cost to provide safe water to the one billion people going without.

Can this be right? Is there a Biblical alternative? Is there such a thing as God’s economics? In fact, the Bible has plenty to say on these two fundamental points. As Christians, we need to know the Scriptures, and speak and live prophetically – challenging the dominant but ungodly ruling paradigms of this world.

So, first, is there not enough to go around? Walter Brueggemann reminds us that God created a world that was ordered, abundant, fruitful and very good, good enough to provide for its inhabitants.2 Passages such as Psalm 104 celebrate God’s abundant provision. As Brueggemann says, “the psalm makes clear that we don't need to worry. God is utterly, utterly reliable. The fruitfulness of the world is guaranteed.”

Where did this notion of scarcity come from? Our greediness leads us to always want more and we fear that we will never have enough. In the desert God provided manna for the Israelites to eat. There was enough for everyone. When they followed the myth of scarcity and tried to hoard the manna, it turned sour and rotted. They did not need to continually struggle to get more. God would provide.

Jesus continues the battle against the myth of scarcity. In Matthew 6:24-34 he states that we cannot serve God and money. We cannot spend our lives striving to get more; to “have enough”. And we don’t need to: “Do not worry…” he says. “Look at the birds...” (Matthew 6:25, 26).

Luke precedes his version of the same discourse with the story of the Rich Fool; the hoarder who never has enough, who lives his life according to the myth of scarcity (Luke 12:13-21). God calls the man a fool. Twice in Mark’s gospel we read of Jesus feeding crowds with a few loaves and fish (Mark 6:30-44, Mark 8:1-13), demonstrating through the miraculous multiplication of food, the principle that God has provided enough for all.

Paul understood this as well. When discussing his collection for the believers in Jerusalem he highlights God’s economics: Though Jesus was rich, Paul says, “yet for your sakes he became poor, that by his poverty you might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9). The aim of Paul’s collection was that “the one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.” Paul is quoting from Exodus, from the story of the manna. He understood that God has provided enough; we just need to share.

So, according to the Bible, the world’s resources are not scarce, they are enough (in fact, the United Nations agrees3). But how do we determine who gets what? For many, the laws of supply and demand have found divine approval in a privatized Christianity of individualism and personal freedom. However, God calls us to be a community, a people, a society who collectively live out the values of his Kingdom. Do the original people of God, the Israelites, have anything to teach us on this?

Old Testament scholar Christopher J.H. Wright emphasises that while we are not to imitate Israel’s laws, neither are we to ignore them. They act as a model for us, an example of God’s timeless principles of love and justice.4 Therefore the Sabbath rest, debt cancellation and slave emancipation are relevant biblical principles for Christians. The Jubilee restoration of land is relevant to us.

The Old Testament law recognized that full equality was impracticable. There are many reasons why some people become poor and others rich. These include natural causes (drought, floods), accidents and human sinfulness (greed, oppression and laziness). However, God ensured that the subsequent inequalities are neither permanent nor exacerbated over time. The Jubilee was not about charity but about restoring to families the ability to provide for themselves again.

In Deuteronomy 15, Moses writes that the there should be no poor among the Israelites. There is plenty to go around. However, he acknowledges that things will go wrong (“there will always be poor in the land”). In these cases they are to be “openhanded towards your brothers and towards the poor and needy in your land.” Generosity and Jubilee restoration limited inequality and prevented exploitation.

Ownership of land in Israel was never absolute. It was owned by God for the benefit of the people. Its purpose was not profit maximization; but community wellbeing. Similarly, security on loans could not be enforced if people were left without adequate shelter or clothing. In God’s economy, people come first. Assets, whether land or finances, exist to provide livelihoods for all, not to create wealth, indifferent to inequality or suffering.

Modern applications of these principles may require some creative thinking, but the principles of restoring opportunity and sharing resources are at the heart of God’s economics and are as applicable today as in the ancient world. If we abandon the myth of scarcity and start to live in the truth of God’s abundance, then we need not fear generosity and redistribution. God has shown us an economic alternative. Do we have the faith, courage and creativity to live prophetically as God’s people in a corrupt world?
John McKinnon is NSW State Co-ordinator for Tear Australia. This article first appeared in TEAR’s Target magazine, Issue 4, 2007.

References
1. From the introduction to Ched Myers, The Biblical Vision of Sabbath Economics (Tell the World, 2002).
2. Walter Brueggemann, “The Liturgy of Abundance, The Myth of Scarcity,” Christian Century, March 24-31, l999.
3. “Reducing poverty and hunger: The critical role of financing for food, agriculture and rural development,” paper prepared to the International Conference on Financing for Development Monterrey, Mexico, 18-22 March 2002, p. 11.
4. Christopher J.H. Wright, Living as the People of God: The Relevance of Old Testament Ethics (Leicester: IVP, 1983).

light globes and climate change

i got home from a meeting today to find 2 things. One Em had gone and bought some of those funky energy saving light globes which now are installed (by me of cause). And i also got an email of an article on a Biblical foundation for climate change action. i thought it was worthy of a post here... any comments?


A biblical foundation for climate change action
by John McKinnon

Was it Al Gore’s film? Was it the drought? Whatever the catalyst, climate change is now headline news every day. Is it just a distraction from our true mission, or is it an integral part of our Kingdom mandate?

At least in living memory, Christianity and environmentalism have not been close partners. In 1967, Professor Lynn White wrote an influential article, “The historical roots of our ecological crisis,”[1] which accused Christianity of providing the foundation for environmental exploitation and degradation by viewing creation’s purpose as simply to serve humankind.

Christianity has often viewed the material world as less valuable than the spiritual world. James Watt, US Secretary of the Interior in the Reagan government, expressed a popular belief when he wrote that the earth is “merely a temporary way station on the road to eternal life … The earth was put here by the Lord for His people to subdue and use for profitable purposes on their way to the hereafter.”[2]

The Bible presents a different story. Creation is a demonstration of the glory of God, to be cared for and nurtured. It eagerly awaits its own renewal when Christ returns. Furthermore, to love our neighbours, as Jesus commanded, surely implies that we share the world’s resources with others, both present and future. Environmentalism, therefore, goes to the heart of God’s demand for justice.

Creation

In Genesis 1 we read that “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good”. Psalms 8, 19 and 104, among others, speak of God’s glory displayed by the heavens and the earth. God’s dramatic reply to Job, in Job 38-41, demonstrates emphatically how the creation reveals God’s existence, power and character. In Romans 1:20, Paul declares that this “natural revelation” so reflects God’s glory that no-one can remain ignorant of God.

Perhaps the most remarkable element of creation is the man Jesus Christ. In the incarnation, in which God assumes physical form and lives in this world, we have a remarkable validation of creation. Furthermore, the resurrection, first of Christ, and at his return, ours, in transformed physical bodies, is further validation of the physical world. According to Romans 8:20-22, when Jesus returns, all creation will be renewed.

Paul refers to this renewal in his other New Testament letters. Ephesians 1:10 and Colossians 1:20 speak of all things being brought together and reconciled under Christ. God has not abandoned creation to decay or destruction, but through Christ has planned for its renewal. Christ’s resurrection is our assurance of this promise of renewal, what Paul called the “firstfruits”. The entire physical creation is part of God’s plan.

Christians have been called to live out the values of God’s Kingdom in this world, even though its consummation awaits Jesus’ return. This includes our treatment of his creation. In our personal holiness, our relationships, our pursuit of justice, and in our care of creation, we anticipate God’s future rule.

What about Genesis 1:28, which speaks of “subduing” and “ruling” over the Earth? Creation still belongs to God. We are never more than stewards, charged with using God’s resources to His glory and to serve others. Selfish exploitation of the creation was not God’s intention.

So creation is good, reflecting God’s glory, revealing God’s character and power, and is destined for renewal as part of God’s all-encompassing Kingdom. We serve our King and anticipate his future rule by not only caring for his creation but working towards its healing.

Justice

God reveals himself throughout the Bible as a God who “defends the cause of the fatherless and widow.” On the verge of entering the Promised Land, the people were told: “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be open-handed ... towards the poor and needy in your land” (Deuteronomy 15:11). Sharing the world’s resources to alleviate poverty is no optional extra, but a fundamental outworking of God’s character.

Sadly, the impact of environmental degradation falls most heavily on the poor. Living in the most vulnerable places, farming the least fertile land, occupying the most polluted land, it is the poor who suffer, often forced through their poverty to further degrade the land on which they live.

Since environmental degradation is largely the product of industrial society, the Bible does not explicitly addressed it. However, there are several elements in the Levitical law that highlight God’s intention that his people demonstrate justice by sharing, caring for and preserving natural resources.

The Sabbatical year (Leviticus 25:1-7) allowed the land itself to be rested every 7th year, rather than ruthlessly exploited for short term gain. The Year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8-55) takes this principle much further. The 50th year redistribution of land demonstrates that property ownership is not absolute; merely a temporary stewardship of what belongs to God. Natural resources must therefore be managed in such a way that they remain available and useful to future “stewards”.

God’s justice demands that the poor and most vulnerable be cared for; that the world’s resources are shared among all people, of this and future generations, and that we act to prevent environmental damage from further oppressing those already suffering under heavy burdens of poverty and marginalization.

Climate change

Climate change is the major environmental issue of our day. It threatens the lives of millions of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. They will suffer lower economic growth, direct impacts on their livelihoods and assets, decreased food and water security, increased incidence of diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis, and increased risk of disasters.

Those of us in wealthy nations, through our continued consumption of electricity produced by fossil fuels, our polluting transportation, our continued land clearing and meat consumption, are causing this problem. As consumers, proprietors and employees, we are among the beneficiaries.

As God’s people, we are called to live the values of God’s Kingdom here and now. This involves loving our neighbours, demonstrating justice for the poor, and working for the renewal and healing of creation. Human-induced climate change represents degradation of creation and a gross injustice against the world’s poor. Climate change is therefore our responsibility, and tackling it is part of our God given mission.

What has climate change got to do with Christians? Everything! It is our problem and we are called to be part of the solution. We must examine our own lives as well as speaking up on behalf of those most affected, but with the least voice. As Isaiah urged his people, so his words challenge us to action:

Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow (Isaiah 1:17).

Mr John McKinnon is the NSW State Co-ordinator for Tear Australia. This article first appeared in TEAR’s Target magazine, August 2007.

References:
1. Lynn White, Jr., “The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis,” Science 155, 1967, pp. 1203-1207.
2. James Watt, “Ours is the Earth,” Saturday Evening Post, January/February 1982, pp. 74-75.

Mr Deity, Divine child abuse and Eternal Subordination

This Sunday we looked at Philippians 2 and as a starter I showed ep2 of Mr. Deity.



Now this tends to lampoon our evangelical understanding of the Cross. It also seems to be close to the whole “divine child abuse” idea when it comes to penal substitution.

I would like to add just one little bit into the mix here….

If the “Trinity” is Co-Equal and not eternally subordinate (as some people tend to think these days) then for Jesus to submit to Death even death on the cross, means that he willing submitted to a plan that was developed by the co-equal trinity!

But if cross was but only the “Fathers will” and not a plan of the co-equal trinity then it does seem to be close to “divine child abuse”

How then do we explain the fact that Jesus submitted to the will of the Father? It is stated time and time again in scripture...

Well I think that Phil 2:6-8 and Kenotic Theory gives us the answer. That he gave up that equality for his earthly ministry and then submitted to death as being the plan that the Co-equal trinity had come up with.

Well that is my half assed attempt at this whole idea, you can also catch my talk from Sunday on the podcast.

Comments? I’m sure there will be…

Notes from Forge

Here is the first set of notes from Mike Frost's first session last Friday at the Forge intensive. It is only shorthand so it probably doesn’t do it that much justice but here it is anyway.

3 Doctrines that undergird the Spirituality of Mission

Missio Dei
Defined as the Mission of God or more fully, the DNA of God is that of a Sent and Sending God. The Hebrew understanding was that God is involved in the world, that he is not aloof and just watching over but intimately involved.

Paticiparto Christi
That if we take the Missio Dei seriously then we are to participate in what God is doing in this world.

Five skills to participate in what Christ is doing:

1. Let Jesus be our reference point (don’t let “churchianity” rule).
2. Foster a radical spirituality of engagement
3. Be inspired by Prevenient grace.
4. Follow the Missio Dei into strange places
5. Inspire those around you to do the same

The Imago Dei
All humans are reflections of the image of God. Even if we are cracked images there are still fingerprints of God in everybody’s life.

Lots to reflect on, I might post up some other notes or reflections later. Any comments please feel free to debate argue or encourage here…

its raining PM's

This week the PM "little Johnny" Urged Australians to pray for rain... An interesting artical dropped in my inbox about this from the Centre for Christian Ethics It raised some interesting concerns on what it means for our Government to be calling for drought breaking rain... how does this effect our mission in the world...

I have also been quite concerned at the very "Old Testament" view of a lot of Christians that this drought is somehow a result of "National Sin" im not sure that this is how we should view it...

anyway have a read of this artical (warning long quote)

Prayer for rain and the Prime Minister
by Kristine Morrison

On 20 April The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) reported the Australian Prime Minister’s call to pray for rain in response to the dire state of the Murray-Darling Basin. This call was endorsed in a media release by Rev Dr Ross Clifford, President of the Baptist Union of Australia. Among other things, Dr Clifford encouraged church leaders around Australia to ensure that time was set aside for prayer each Sunday until the drought was broken, and asked the churches to pray for families severely affected by the drought.

The Herald’s Letters to the Editor section of the 23 April devoted significant space to responses to the Prime Minister’s call to prayer. In contrast to Dr Clifford, respondents were unenthusiastic, derisive and scathing.

Does this diversity of opinions represent a simple divide between secular people, who do not believe that there is a place for prayer in everyday life, and people of faith? Or are there genuine problems with a broadly stated call to prayer from a political leader in a liberal democracy such as Australia?

It is difficult for Christians to voice reservations about a public call to prayer for drought-breaking rain. However, there are some aspects of this call to payer that will trouble praying believers.

Christians are wary of having their prayer life co-opted for the advancement of a particular political agenda. Whilst they may pray and indeed be happy to pray for rain, they may not wish to have their prayer life conscripted for the furtherance of the Prime Minister’s ambition. There are also conditions of prayer and limits to the kinds of things that may be requested in prayer that need to be considered when approaching the Almighty.

Even though Dr Clifford’s statement appears to support the Prime Minister’s call, there are elements in his statement that qualify the endorsement. Dr Clifford reminds us that Christians, particularly those in rural areas, have been praying for rain for many months if not years. Rural communities appreciate – far more acutely than city dwellers – our intimate dependence on the cycles of nature. There is an implicit, if gentle, rebuke for our Prime Minister in the words of our President that is worth noting.

Dr Clifford also suggests that we need to pray for wisdom in the management and restoration of our water resources. It is perhaps this apparent lack of wisdom, revealed by our Prime Minister, that so infuriated the writers to the Herald’s letters page.

They point out that in the past decade of prosperity the government has not seriously addressed water management issues. John Howard is accused of failing to listen to scientific advice about water management and being without an alternative water management plan. His plea for prayer is reckoned by one correspondent to be reasonable only in comparison to being asked to slaughter a chicken.

Though secularists, these writers have proved alert to some of the dilemmas facing those who pray. Is it reasonable to pray to avoid the consequences of something that those who pray may have contributed to? Our squandering of water and our failure to be active in prompting our government to take water management practices seriously does compromise our approach to God.

One writer to the Herald, clearly not a secularist, made a compelling link between the need for repentance and effective prayer. He advocated a day of repentance where the nation could acknowledge both God as the giver of rain and our dependence on the generosity of God to provide for all our needs to accompany our requests for rain. Many of us have prayed to escape the consequences of our actions. However, we can only do this when we express contrition and repentance for such actions. This important and significant aspect of prayer was omitted in our Prime Minister’s call to prayer.

The knowledge of the cyclic nature of rain patterns presents another difficulty for those who pray for rain. We know that higher rainfall in one part of Australia (or the world) usually means less rain in some other part of the continent (or the world). Is it right for us to pray for more natural abundance in our part of the world when other places, already suffering resource depletion, may receive less rain as a result?

Writers to the Herald were also annoyed by our Prime Minister’s apparent lack of cultural sensitivity. Which God was he suggesting that we pray to? Yahweh? The Christian God? Allah? Christians may assume that Mr Howard was referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but that may not be clear to all members of our community.

If Mr Howard was only calling Christians to prayer, he was ignoring the religious convictions of many in our community. But if he was making a universalist call to prayer, he ran the risk of insulting Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims alike by flattening the diverse meanings of prayer to a one-note refrain. As a missionary people, aware of cultural sensitivities and the challenges of religious pluralism, Australian Baptists might have hoped that our national leader could provide spiritual direction without alienating significant sections of our community.

Public prayer is not a concept that can be conscripted for political gain. Nor, as Mr Howard has perhaps discovered, is it a motherhood issue that will unite everyone in a surge of good feeling. As Florence Allshorn observed, “the primary object of prayer is to know God better; we and our needs should come second.”

It is too much to expect our political leaders to encapsulate such a profound appreciation of prayer in public statements, but we can wish that they might avoid reducing public calls to prayer to a glib sound bite.

Kristine Morrison is a midwife at Sydney’s Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and a member of the Social Issues Committee of the Baptist Churches of NSW and ACT.

state of religion

watching the Anzac day coverage today had me thinking, i know it has been said before but it seems that the "Anzac Spirit" has become the new state religion, the guiding metanarative for secular Australia....

This new religion of the "Anzac Spirit" is really a syncretism of Christianity and a kind of ancestral worship. Today i heard much about how these young men, who by all accounts were slaughtered by the bad planning of British authorities, forged the ideals that have shaped us as a nation.... but in what way is that true? These men wernt politicians, or activists or idealists... they were doing the job of a soldier....

i know this is politically incorrect way of thinking but as i said this has become the new "State religion" so how should we as Christians respond to this? do we just roll with it? is it bad? is it an opportunity to contextualize the Gospel?

to tell you the truth i am not sure? I can see the emptiness of a world view that is purely a nationalistic view of wars past.... but also how does it effect the way that we move headlong into the new millennium... the war that was to end all wars has not.... we continue to fight and kill, both through conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan etc... and through unjust foreign polices effecting millions in the third world. Do we need to challenge the view that war will "fix" the worlds problems?

a good article to look at over at signposts

any comments?

the mall blog

well continuing with my tradition of blogging in interesting locations... i am currently in the middle of the last minute consumerfest that is the local westfeild mall the thursday before Christmas... (i am on a husband saving business called everywhere internet)

all arround me money is changing hands people are over spending and not much more... not i know to have a rant about the consumerism of Christmas is soooo like "95" but well it hasnt changed much...

although i did enjoy this piece i read today which calls into question if Christmas has realy EVER been a Christian holiday...

comments?

won't sombody please think of the children

this silly catch cry by our favourate pastors wife was rolling around in my mind today as i was relayed a story about a friend who was going to a new "emerging church" plant but has just left because it was felt that the children weren't being well catered for.

Now i don't have any "news" there is no bun in the oven but i was thinking about this because as we seek to contextualize church for the next generation it is easy to forget the spiritual needs and formation of the kids... the "established" church still has the edge over the small emerging movements because they have a long tradition of sunday school and youth ministries...

i can see in my church right now a whole generation that are getting married and having babies, that still identify with the sunday night congregation and im sure will find it difficult in the next few years dragging kids out at 7-8pm sunday nights....

the usual thinking is to transfer to the morning congregation but what if the culture is different? if the fit isn't right?

i don't know if i have answers but only questions on how an emerging flavor of church (that primarily is targeted at the single 20's) can embrace change and grow up without selling out...

any thoughts?

the last, the lost and the least

tonight i had the pleasure of sharing at church... my first sermon at maroubra baptist.... it went pretty good and i linked my blog on the handout, so if your reading this from church, welcome to notyetfinished....

i have included the sermon for download (will try to put the audio on some time)

the video reflection is available here on youtube

and the links to reaserch those looking out for the last in this world...

www.makepovertyhistory.com.au
www.shareanopportunity.org
www.amnesty.org.au
www.oxfam.org.au
www.fta.org.au
www.worldvision.com.au

so please comment add your ideas, voice your doubts, and think about how we can look out and help the last in this world.