Imitatio Christi

More Reflections...from an overworked guy:)

            Sadly, my day jobs are keeping me from being able to respond to each of you individually, or even to read in detail al the comments.  I have skimmed them, however, and will use this as a means to offer some further details on my positions on these issues.  Before I get into that, however, let me encourage us again to engage each other with civility and respect.  Feel free to argue passionately with each other at the argument level, but DO NOT fall prey to the temptation to resort to ad hominem arguments.  You should recognize that most folks take the resort to ad hominem attack the surest indicator that you have run out of rational response. So, some thoughts.

 

            I picked up a disturbing hermeneutical position in the course of the comments which seemed to indicate that the only thing that would count as a “clear” biblical argument is the location of passages that explicitly state something.  So, the only thing that would count as a persuasive and clear biblical argument for governments being involved in care for the poor is if one could find a passage that says, “Governments are to do x with regard to the poor.”  Such a position is highly, highly problematic on a number of fronts.

 

            First, as I recall, it was one of the Gregory’s (Nazianzus in The Catechetical Oration, I think) who noted that if Scripture says 5 and 7 it need not also say 12.  In other words, Gregory explicitly recognized that reading Scripture rightly required more nuance than simply trying to find direct statement on everything Scripture actually addresses.

 

            Second, Basil, in On the Holy Spirit, says that he is going to attempt to argue for the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture, but notes that if you do not find his arguments persuasive, you should still adhere to the teachings of the Fathers.  He recognized that it was going to take a careful and close reading of the biblical texts in order to draw the conclusion that God was Trinitarian.  The early church spent four centuries before it was able to canonize its statement on the Trinity, showing how complicated drawing the correct conclusions can be.

 

            Third, Athanasius, in Contra Arianos, readily admitted that the Arians had a long and persuasive list of proof texts.  However, he argued they were wrong because they read Scripture in a “wooden and literalistic” fashion.  It is worth noting that there were two major interpretive traditions n the early church—the Alexandrian and the Antiochene.  One tended to interpret more literally and the other allowed more for figurative and non-literal interpretations.  Many fundamentalists are shocked to find that the school that most often wandered off into heresy was the one that interpreted in a more literal fashion.  So, the idea that I have to show a passage that says “Governments have a role to play in caring for the poor” would be quite a strange hermeneutic to the early Fathers.  What I have done is consistent with what they did. I’ve tried to give a “sense of the text” from various locations and then drawn conclusions accordingly.

 

            Fourth, I’ve alluded to it above, but let me make it explicit:  if you hold that that which one affirms is only what Scripture claims explicitly, you will necessarily end up both a trintarian and Chalcedonian heretic—as neither the doctrine of the Trinity or the two natures of Christ is explicitly stated in Scripture.

 

            Let me transition to a somewhat different hermeneutical concern, this one dealing with the sorts of presuppositions one brings to reading Scripture.  I have a friend and colleague who points out that one of the most significant problems we have in reading Scripture rightly is that we bring what are essentially Western presuppositions to what is essentially a book written from the context of Eastern culture. This has numerous implications, important for this discussion.

 

            First, as Joel Green points out in The Scandal of the Cross, while Western cultures may use the image of “blind justice” as a metaphor for the legal system, not all do.  Most notably, some Eastern cultures go in precisely the opposite direction.  He gives the example of Japanese culture wherein the judge is not perceived as blindly indifferent, but rather has his eyes wide open to observe the interactions between plaintiff and defendant. He gives the explicit example of a man who kills another person in an automobile accident.  The judge does not pronounce judgment until he goes, himself, to the funeral to see how the two parties interact.  Why?  Because in this tradition, the law is not there to balance some invisible scales of justice, but rather is there to restore relationship.  When we go to Scripture and impose the sense of justice that comes from a blind folded Lady Justice, we are taking a relatively contemporary Western definition of “justice” and reading it back into the texts.

 

            Second, Walter Brueggemann makes a similar point in his essay in Blackwell’s Companion to Political Theology (don’t recall the title, but it is very early in the volume).  There he argues that what God was mostly trying to get Israel to see in the OT was that he intended his people to live in accord with a different kind of political economy, one in which relationships, and not markets, were normative.  God consistently favored relationships and people over profits and property and when he gives instructions about how we are to live together, relationships always trump.

 

            Third, at a deeper level, we Westerners need to be fully cognizant of the fact that there is a fundamental difference to how we conceive the world as opposed to how the biblical writers would have.  This difference is rather untidily summed up by saying that we live under the presuppositions of a “forensic” or “juridical” grasp of reality, whereas the biblical writers lived under an understanding of reality rooted in “honor/shame” categories.  Because of this, we tend to over-exaggerate the importance of freedom in the sense of “freedom to choose,” and tend to be blind to the more biblical notion of freedom as freedom from corruption and perversion.  In similar fashion, we think of justice as a concept that is more “getting what you deserve,” rather than in the more biblical notion of justice as that which promotes inter-dependent relationships.  Given that none of God’s attributes stand in tension with any others, it is relevant here that the goodness of God is characterized most pre-eminently as his “blessing without regard to merit.”  Persons are of infinite worth, and a system of justice that understands this and goes into analysis with “eyes wide open” is far more biblical than our contemporary forensically based justice systems.  The ideas that freedom in the sense of “freedom to choose” and justice in the since of balancing the invisible scales are both rather far from a more deeply biblical view of how we are to live together.

 

            On a different point, I continue to be distressed at the extent to which history is being cited in ways that attribute only good things as causally connected to capitalism and all bad things are merely correlated to it.  The objections that Eastern cultures raise to modern capitalism often have to do with the problems that historically attend the introduction of capitalist presuppositions.  Can capitalism be chastened so as to prevent these seeds from blooming?  Probably, but the market is not a metaphysical reality that has some existence apart from the persons who make it up.  Hence, I argue for the reasons I have cited before, that the confidence that the market “can handle all the rest” is a serious error in reading history, human nature, and particularly God’s expectations for us.  The “blind justice” and the individualism implied in pursuit of self-interest necessarily run counter to the focus on relationships I have attributed to Eastern cultures.

 

            Similarly, I continue to be confused by the attempts to distinguish between “self-interest” and “selfishness.”  Here are a couple of popular definitions:

 

Self-interest: regard for one's own interest or advantage, esp. with disregard for others.

 

Selfishness: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

 

I must say I am pretty amazed that we think we can construct arguments that sanctify self-interest, especially in light of the biblical witness on the issue.  But, even beyond that, the difference in meanings of the words will simply not support the distinctions being made.  Of course, one of the single most telling points here is that, when asked to explain the differences in detail, we get an admission that one cannot do it!  I fear we have more of the tendentious reading of data—trying to create a distinction that is supposed to anchor the reasons supporting a position, but when pushed, we only get more assertions about how it is just so.

 

            Finally, I really am surprised that we are still arguing the idea that persons only act in accord with their interests.  I’ve given examples (and, it only takes one!) of why this is false, but the retort is that it is just true that folks act out of their interests.  The examples are dismissed on the basis that this claim (people just act in accord with their interests) is a better explanation of what is going on, better than my alternative or an individual’s own explanations of why they chose a particular act.  When ask why this is a better explanation, we are simply given the premise again.  This simply will not do, and there are several problems with the thesis to begin with—not the least of which it puts its defenders in a profound contradiction.  How so?  Well, to say folks always act in their own self-interest is to say that all actions are causally determined—by what we see to be in our best interests. Yet, the same defenders of this position are defenders of libertarian freedom. You really cannot have it both ways…… At the end of the day, if humans are free, a frequent answer to why someone did x has to be simply because they chose it with no answer, other than it was a free choice, as to why they chose it.

 

            More later…..

Repeating the Past

    Fitting the narrative...an interesting concept, that applies to all of us at some point, I expect.  I think the Dallas Cowboys should be beaten every week, and I find my moral justifications for that position and ignore those that would contradict me.  Perhaps I am morally perverse for not liking the Cowboys:)  At a deeper level, though, there are some real dangers here, and Krugman gets at some of them in this piece.  Be glad to hear your thoughts.

Irrational Exuberance? You Got That Right!

            Of all the Delphic utterances of Alan Greenspan over the course of his time as Fed Chief, his observation that various market investment mechanisms might possibly be overvalued, and thus suggesting that folks might be motivated by an “irrational exuberance,” was my favorite.  Some would say the observation was prescient in light of subsequent events in the global economy.  Of course, the observation that someone is acting with “irrational exuberance” need not be limited the Greenspan’s application.  I want to explore another, but related, application in the following few paragraphs.  Let me say that I am at least conceptually indebted to Harvey Cox’s well known essay entitled “The Market as God.”

 

            If there is anything that continues to enjoy a high degree of “irrational exuberance,” it has to be the belief that an unrestrained, free market holds the answer to all of our economic woes and uncertainties.  One would think this would be less the case, given current circumstances.  Even Greenspan commented that his confidence in people doing the right thing in a free market was misplaced.  Yet, we continue to hear free market ideologues telling us that if we would but free markets so that they were governed merely by free associations between free individuals, all would be well.  Go figure!

 

             Consider some of the language that free marketers use in regard to the market.  We are told that free, unrestrained markets would just “do the right thing,” that they are able “to determine the correct value for goods and services,” that they will “self correct” when errors occur, and that there is an “invisible hand” that directs markets in wise and beneficent ways.  And, following Cox, consider some of the ways we personify the market (to hear these on a daily basis, pick any financial news show).  We say that the market “liked” or “disliked” certain actions, that the market was “upset” with a particular corporation, and that the market “punished” a corporation for daring to violate one of its self-evidently true principles.  If one ponders these ways of thinking of the market, one has to wonder why in the world Christians would be comfortable with this way of thinking.  After all, some of these concepts, as Cox suggests, are ones that Christians would normally not be inclined to apply to any entity other than God, much less to something as abstract and indeterminate as “the market.”

 

            Perhaps the deepest problem (beyond the minor issue of idolatry!) becomes evident if we take the time to ask exactly what we mean when we deploy the term “the market.”  First, “the market” is merely a rhetorical construct that we use to reference a set of relations that obtain between individuals and groups in a variety of contexts.  Second, since these relationships exist between humans (sinful humans, on Christian accountings), there is no reason to assume that these relations will be carried out in a moral, and more importantly, Christian manner.  Of course, history bears this out. One thinks of the abuses under the laissez faire capitalism of the early 20^th century.  Third, we have to recognize that there is an irremedial tension between this exaltation of the market and Christian faith.  At the core, the free market ideologists believe that it is the coming together of persons to engage in free economic relations, each pursuing their own interests, that makes them work in the long run.  However, all of Scripture in general and Jesus in particular, tell us that, to be imitators of God, we are to be motivated not by our own self-interest, but rather by the interests of others.  As long as we intend to be followers of Jesus, we cannot embrace systems that sanctify self-interest.  In fact, some of the church’s great theologians have connected sin most essentially with being motivated by self-interest.  Is it irrational exuberance to put such faith in markets?  You betcha, and it is well time that we Christians stand up and say so!

The Disappearing Middle Class

A sad tale...and yet, we Christians too often remain quiet, or worse, defend the systems that empower this abuse.....

Profits Over People

Well, at least they are honest....I guess that's something.....

The Free Market at Work

Via Andrew, click here for a despicable practice.

My, My, My

    Well, a guy goes away to eat a little turkey, and the natives get restless:)  Seriously, some excellent give and take in the comments. So much so, in fact, that I decided to use a blog post in hopes of extending the discussion.  First, it is not my intention to name blog commentors, since I'd surely forget someone important. Having said that, I must admit I did get more than a smile out of seeing someone else on the receiving end of Philip's keen analytic skills.  I have been trying to get my arms around the underlying argument from your interlocutor, and I have found myself having some trouble nailing that down.

    At first, I thought the claim about capitalism (roughly:  Capitalism is the morally superior form of economy) was viewed as something for which an argument need not be supplied.  There are, I think, three reasons why someone might argue that some proposition P need not be rationally defended.  First, they take P to be self-evident.  But, as one of my doctoral mentors once noted, it is very strange to argue that some P is self-evidently true after someone else has provided an argument against P.  It might turn out that P is true or false, but it cannot be self-evidently true.  Second, one can argue that P is a "first principle," and, with Aristotle, note that one does not argue or first principles.  However, things that count as "first principles" are not generally composed of things as complex as the moral superiority of a given economic form.  It is hard to see how this would count as a first principle.  Third, one can presuppose P is true.  I suppose one can presuppose anything one wishes, but it is hard to see why one would think anyone else should believe P to be true just because they presuppose it to be true.  So, that was going nowhere.

    Then, as I read further, it seemed that something like an argument was developing.  P (the claim about the moral superiority of capitalism) was true because humans are created in the image of God, which means they are creative, and the morally superior form of economy is one that maximizes creativity.  Well, here we have numerous problems.  First, the theological conclusion about creativity is highly debatable, but I'll return to that below.  Second, the claim about moral superiority connecting to maximization of creativity is problematic.  What is the argument for that?  Surely, on the same grounds we argued above, this is a claim that would need an argument.  Third, if you can get there (which I seriously doubt), you'd still have to show how P is the conclusion to this argument.  Even if one were to agree that the morally superior economy is one that maximizes creativity, you'd still have a monumental task to prove that capitalism is that form.  There seemed to be other arguments developing as well.  One that replaces "creativity" in the above argument with "libertarian freedom," but again, that argument would fair no better than the one on creativity.  There seemed to be others developing, things about small businesses vs. big businesses (how does one decide which ones go on which side of the line? and the answer to that invites more), etc. etc.

    So, at the end of all that, I find myself wishing someone could reduce the argument that concludes the beneficent things about capitalism into a set of premises that lead to that conclusion.  That would be very helpful.  Then we could see where the open questions, if any, are.

    There are three theological points that raised their head in the course of the discussion that I would like to address.  One has to do with the image of God in humans.  One has to do with the issue of libertarian freedom and it's status as a summum bonum.  One has to do with the core tension between capitalism and Christian faith.  Let us handle them in this order.

    Is it the case that the tradition has seen the image of God in humans connected to creativity?  Well, yes, but the major focus has been elsewhere.  Of the ways in which the image of God has been understood to be expressed in human nature, two predominate.  One is the view that human rationality is primary (one thinks of Thomas Aquinas).  Those who focus on the unity of God often end here.  Another is the view that relationality is primary.  Those who have a heightened sense of the significance of the doctrine of the Trinity often end here.  Being a strong trinitarian, I have often argued that the main point of the image of God in us is our creation for being in relationships that imitate the divine life.  Scripture consistently calls us to be "other centered," and this focus on the communal aspect of the divine image gets after that.  Once one sees the importance of relationality in our imitation of the divine nature, we can see how God's commands to care for the poor and marginalized arises from our communal nature.  We are not just created for relationships, but for relationships of mutual inter-dependence, as one of our interlocutors suggested.  And once we go this way, it becomes much less clear how it is that capitalism is the best way there.

    On the issue of libertarian freedom, I fear we have allowed our thinking to become far too focused in the last few hundred years.  Christians, who make liberarian freedom the summum bonum have, I suspect, become much more Lockean political liberals than Christian.  To see how evident it is that one cannot simply assume such a high standing for libertarian freedom, one only need observe that perhaps more than half of Protestantism denies humans even have such a thing as libertarian freedom.  So, one would need to provide us a pretty good argument as to why libertarian freedom is the central point around which economic structures should be formed.  After all, when in the OT we are told that "everyone did what was right in their own sight," that was not a good thing.  By the way, in Scripture, the idea of "freedom" in Scripture is more often connected to the notion of freedom from sin--not to the abstract idea of freedom to choose (here one thinks of Jesus saying, "When the Son makes you free, you are free indeed.")

    Finally, as I have written elsehwere, there is a fundamental and irremedial tension between capitalism and Christian faith.  According to Scripture, from early on til the end, the biblcal call for those who would follow God is to be motivated by the interest of others and not self-interest.  In fact, many of the church's great theologians have considered sin, most essentially, to be our being motivated by self-interest.  Captalism elevates and sanctifies self-interest; we are told to have the mind of Christ in elevating the interests of others over ourselves.  Now, some defenders of capitalism have tried to get around this by saying that it is okay as long as we are motivated by enlightened self-interest.  Supposedly, the term enlightened covers a multitude of sins and makes us act in ways that are "good" for others because we are enlightened to the fact that our good is connected with the good of others.  This seems at best naive.  Let's just be honest, if we are to act in our own self interest (even longer term self interest), Thrasymachus (from the Republic, by Plato) was correct.  He argued that the best way to go was to give the appearance of being concerned about the interest of others while really acting in our own self-interest.

    So, while it may be popular lore in the US today that capitalism is the "best" form of economy and that capitalism is taught by Scripture, I think those popular conceptions require examination.  Consequently, it would be a grand thing if we could set these aside and move to a more nuanced discussion about the outcomes we want from our economy, and then to a discussion about how best to get there.  I do not expect a pure form of any of the popular ideas will get us there, but a creative combination might.....

What Do Health Care Reform, the 40 Work Week, Unemployment Insurance, the Minimum Wage, etc, etc. Have in Common?

            Well, they were all brought to you by political progressives, they were all opposed by political conservatives, and they all are now viewed as fundamental presuppositions of a healthy society by virtually everyone.  Okay, all but health care reform, but trust me, if it passes, in no time at all it will be viewed so positively that we will no longer be able to remember why it took us so long to implement it.  And, of course, the list actually includes many, many more initiatives—child labor laws, basic workplace safety rules, social security, Medicare, and so on.

 

            In each case, the vast majority of political conservatives opposed them.  They told us that businesses would be ruined, that the problems resulting from implementing the initiatives would be worse than if we left things as they were, that implementing them would make us non-competitive, or, more generally, that the good life as we know it would be gone if we were so foolish as to pass these pieces of legislation.  One would think that after being wrong sooo many times, political conservatives would speak with a bit more epistemic humility, but alas, not so.  If one took some of the speeches in opposition to health care reform, one could substitute “minimum wage laws” or “child labor laws” in place of “health care reform” and it would be déjà vu all over again—to quote Yogi.  One wonders why these folks any longer have credibility on issues of basic societal justice.  If you trusted them based on simple empirical evidences, they would be roundly dismissed on such issues.

 

            So, it is not at all surprising to find that, as we are on the verge of possibly the most significant reform in American politics in the last 40 years, political conservatives are united against it.  We have the highest health care cost “per unit” than anyone else in the world, we are below the countries with universal coverage as far as customer satisfaction is concerned, we are somewhere near 40^th in infant mortality (you’d think the pro-life forces would notice this), and it goes on.  Yet, in the midst of these overwhelming evidences to the contrary, those opposed to health care reform think things are just fine.  All that is fine, and let’s make no mistake about it, are the financial interests of those who benefit from the status quo—the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, etc.  These are the ones to whom far too many of our politicos are indebted.  We need more politicians indebted to the common good, to the common person, to the public good.

 

            There is no guarantee yet that there will be health care reform, though we are closer than ever before.  If we do succeed in overcoming the monied interests and act on behalf of the common good, check back with me in three years.  We can celebrate yet another case of political progressives going against special interests to move legislation in favor of the common good.  May it be so!

Sarah Palin and the Demise of Public Discourse

            I wonder how many doctoral dissertations will be written over the next several years aimed at exploring the cultural phenomenon that is Sarah Palin.  It is hard to imagine a scenario in which one would undertake such a study and come to the conclusion that the impact she has wielded on culture has been even marginally positive.  Here we had a person so clearly over their head as a vice-presidential candidate who, nevertheless, is being highly rewarded by a particular substrand of the American population.  Sarah’s stunning ignorance on policy issues was spun as “independence;” an inability to answer questions with even a semblance of articulateness, we were told, was a sign of her “anti-elite” roots; and her engaging in the most crass demagoguery was attributed to her “rogouishness.”  It is hard to imagine a single point of intersection with culture that Sarah did not cheapen the quality of our public discourse, and now, with the publication of a “best seller,” we get to hear even more gems of wisdom.

 

            Perhaps Palin is an easy target for a bigger phenomenon.  It has not been so long that Charles Barkley told us he was not a “role model,” as if a person gets to choose that role!  He was but a minor example of those who plug themselves into public discussion with seemingly no awareness of the responsibility they bear for the things they say.  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jim Cramer, Bernard Goldberg are all examples of folks whose participation in public dialog leave our public discourse more impoverished.  What we need is a mechanism to remind these folks that with great blessing (a major “bully platform”) comes great responsibility.  One thinks of the line from A Christmas Carol, when the ghost of Marley, bearing the chains of injustices carried out in his own life, warns Scrooge that the chain he bears himself is a “ponderous one.”  What ponderous chain does someone like Rush Limbaugh bear for his “contribution” to public discourse?  He used to refer to himself as having “talent on loan from God.”  I used to wonder what Rush thinks God is going to say when he returns that talent, in light of his use of it.

 

            The dynamics of all this are very complex.  A willing and interested audience, coupled with freedom of speech and the freedom to market virtually any idea, not matter how harmful, the reduction of our age to a “sound bite” mentality, are all things that contribute to an environment in which such negative influences on public discourse are allowed to flourish.  I am a strong advocate of freedom of speech, for example, but I am also an advocate for finding a stronger way of tying folks to the damage they do to our public discourse.  I can see the problem, but am less clear on the way forward.  Ideas?

 

What Do You Get When You Cross Micah 6 with John 3:16?

            Well, you get progressive evangelicals—a people who unite those two things too long separated:  the invitation to become followers of Jesus and the call to join the struggle for the creation of just societies.  And, what is it that progressive evangelicals do?  Well, this week a bunch of them are gathered together in Dallas to call the city together under the aegis of Justice Revival.  A revival that calls folks first to become followers, no, not just followers, but disciples of Jesus, and then does not stop there but goes on to invite them to take become disciples who embody Jesus’ concern for the poor and marginalized.

 

            How many of you have experienced the disappointment of finding that those who are most concerned about creating just societies are so often inattentive to inviting folks into relationship with Jesus?  Or, on the other hand, experienced the frustration of seeing those who put such a strong emphasis on evangelism that they forget the biblical emphasis upon issues of justice?  Well, if you have, then Justice Revival is for you—whether you are in Dallas this week or not.  Join with us, wherever you are, and make this a week of Justice Revival for you by praying for your kindred spirits, Christian brothers and sisters, in Dallas.  Then, consider how you can, this week, unite the invitation to become followers of Jesus with the call to become involved in social justice concerns.  Partner with us, and let the spirit of Justice Revival take root where you are, and let us do what we progressive evangelicals do best:  recognize that participation in the struggle for social justice is not something one adds to being a Christian, but rather that it is at the center of what it means to follow the Crucified One!