Disqus - Latest Comments for mwkruse

Re: David Bentley Hart and Universalism: This Week

mwkruse — Tue, 03 Sep 2019 03:00:14 -0000

Well, at least learned what the word “otiose” means.

Re: Michael Kruse: Business People 7

mwkruse — Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:19:34 -0000

"The kind of thing you're describing only makes sense if a group of people understands that their purpose is to -be- something in the world collectively that is much bigger than their doctrinal statements, articles of faith, and individual moral scruples."

Bingo. Most people belong to a congregation for the community and therapeutic benefits.

A few years ago, I was on the session (board) of our congregation where we were wrestling with how to address a social issue that was impacting our congregation. The pastor had preached a couple of times on the issue, trying to lead us in discernment. We had multiple departures from the congregation. One respectful letter came from a long time member who said he is at work in the world every day and has to deal with politics and controversy every day. He and his family come to church each Sunday as a retreat from that world in order to be nourished and fed. He didn't want to confront controversial stuff at church. Several other departing folks expressed similar sentiments. Most people I encounter at church do not have it on their radar that they should be wrestling with difficult issues in the church community. There is no "demand" for activities like work and faith integration. (And too much of what do get is probably better characterized as workplace exploitation for purposes of the "Kingdom," as in the example your offered.)

Meanwhile, pastors frequently feel inadequate to approach such issues and, as Knapp notes, they frequently have ambivalence about business and economics as it is. Without either a demand from the congregation to move in this direction, or a strong personal conviction by pastors to overcome institutional inertia and embrace a bold vision, the status quo continues. Pastors have enough challenges without rocking the boat.

I see little hope of much changing in the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be persistently working toward a more holistic existence. I think Knapp has offered some helpful framing and the next chapter gives suggestions.

Re: Michael Kruse: Business People 5

mwkruse — Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:56:00 -0000

I don't think Knapp is holding Naaman up as a transhistorical principle, but rather is as an example upon which to reflect. It isn't Knapp who suggested Naaman as a role model. Jesus did in Luke 4:27. Jesus clearly thought there was something about this man's character that was worth noting. (And the people in Nazareth promptly tried to take Jesus out of town and stone him.) And part of Naaman's character was to be sensitive to God and reflect on the moral implications of his behavior.

I think if we read the two Knapp quotes prior to the Naaman discussion, it is clear he is not advocating the Naaman story as license for accommodation. Knapp is identifying two poles in tension: Between the desire for holiness and the mission to work in the fallen reality of daily life. Fully embracing both poles as Knapp is advocating is complex and fraught with peril. Meaningful ethical reflection frequently does not track well with simplistic morality, and this is precisely what we too often get from the church world. Deep reflection and the courage to act in morally complex circumstances is the Christian's vocation. Our timidity frequently comes because we fear finding ourselves in uncomfortably complex and morally uncertain circumstances, possibly jeopardizing our relationship with God. Alternatively, in order to fully engage with the world, we compartmentalize and tell ourselves there is really nothing here to worry about. Knapp is rejecting both those responses and calling us to something more holistic.

Re: Michael Kruse: Business People 4

mwkruse — Fri, 22 Feb 2019 05:15:13 -0000

I’m unclear. Are you saying Knapp has a stunning lack of self-awareness?

Re: Michael Kruse: Business People 4

mwkruse — Thu, 21 Feb 2019 12:11:28 -0000

I understand modernism to have an aspiration for truth underlying all our mortality and perceptions of reality. I think that vision has faded. We speak less of "the truth" and speak more of "my truth" and living "my truth." It is not necessary for people living under modernism to have fully embraced it for it to have held sway. Indeed, the fact, that people felt the need to conceal their departures from the dominant narrative is evidence of its power. Now (relatively) we live out our divergent truths without shame. With all the competing truths, dominant narratives are viewed as elitism and oppression. That makes it challenging to integrate into our work and discipleship. I definitely do not see empiricism in ascension. Just the opposite. I guess I would need to hear more.

Re: Michael Kruse: Business People 3

mwkruse — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:50:48 -0000

Hi Dana, Good to see you too. Always enjoy your perspective.

Re: Michael Kruse: Business People 1

mwkruse — Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:19:09 -0000

Good to see you too! Thanks

Re: John S. Watkins Drugs at Brookside Shopping District

mwkruse — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 23:41:27 -0000

The clothing and vehicles are from a much later date than 1920.

Re: For Our White Friends Desiring to Be Allies

mwkruse — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 08:10:05 -0000

A helpful article. Thank you. I would note that it would be helpful if you could be precise in what you mean by capitalism. In economics, capitalism is a system with mostly private ownership, with prices mostly set through market exchange, and reliance primarily on exchanges in the market (as opposed to central planning) to direct the economy. Use of capitalism as blanket perjorative can run off otherwise sympathetic readers. Just my two cents.

Re: More thoughts on Tim Keller

mwkruse — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:10:27 -0000

From the Award website:

“The Abraham Kuyper Prize for Excellence in Reformed Theology and Public Life is awarded each year to a scholar or community leader whose outstanding contribution to their chosen sphere reflects the ideas and values characteristic of the Neo-Calvinist vision of religious engagement in matters of social, political and cultural significance in one or more of the ‘spheres’ of society.”

The award is not for the warp and woof of the recipient’s theology. It is about his or her contribution to a particular “sphere” of society, referencing Kuyper’s public theology that saw society as collection of spheres of activity (like business, education, art, family and such), each operating somewhat sovereign from the others with their own institutional modes of functioning.

Merritt is mistaken in the final paragraph. The Pope would be eligible for the award. The 2010 award went to Lord Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. Sacks is not Christian. He opposes ordination of women in his religious tradition and is opposed to same-sex unions. Dr. Elaine Storkey was the winner in 2016. She is part of an Anglican communion that ordains women but holds that marriage is between a man and a woman only. These honorees were not protested.

Furthermore, the PCUSA has mission partners in other countries that do not ordain woman or LGBTQ persons. We do not merely give an award but have our name identified with theirs in ongoing joint mission efforts. We have domestic relationships that include individuals from such denominations as well. It might be pointed out that the PCUSA does not mandate ordination of LGBTQ persons but permits it where the state says it is legal.

The objection to this award is particular to Keller and his affiliation with the PCA. It is grounded in hostility, justified or not, toward the PCA, and Keeler by extension, because of complementarianism and LGBTQ issues. Relatively few people in our denomination feel personally wronged by Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, or even a mission partner denomination like the Synod of the Nile in Egypt how have similar positions. We have many people who do feel personally wronged by the PCA and by extension Keller. Unfortunately, by opposing Keller, intended or not, it calls into question many partnerships we have elsewhere with similar denominations and persons. Is disagreement on these issues a deal breaker for relationships? Or is it possible to find areas of common ground on which to give recognition and do mission?

Re: Why people prefer government to markets

mwkruse — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:04:27 -0000

In chapter 5 of "Illiberal Reformers," Thomas Leonard gives a synopsis of why we came to see labor and especially market facilitators as disreputable. He dates back to the Greeks with their focus on administrating the Athenian agricultural estate as the supreme calling. Labor was a much lower status but is still valid work. However, trade and finance was truly dispicable work done by dispicable people, usually outsiders (like Jews in Europe.) This continued on down through the Romans and later aristocracies. As I see it, an inseparable link was made between dispised minorities and trade that persisted through the ages. This preference for administration with antipathy toward trade and the people who do it persists (though now generally stripped of explicit anti-Semitic tones.) It is not just that markets are difficult to understand but we have a deep-seated cultural ethos that despises them as unseemly.

Re: Fox & Friends Debates Whether Jesus Was Really A Refugee

mwkruse — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:54:47 -0000

A) I'm not a liberal. Somewhat of cross between a conservative and libertarian. B) I didn't say this had direct implications for any policy today, only that Judeo-Christian ethics has prioritized the vulnerable and the powerless, refugees being among them. That ethic should inform a Christian's engagement with the topic but it does not dictate a particular policy. If someone believes a policy is callous toward those in need it is not inappropriate to raise this ethical context for people who call themselves Christians. C) You said Jesus' refugee experience was peripheral to what Jesus was about. It was that which I was addressing.

Re: Fox & Friends Debates Whether Jesus Was Really A Refugee

mwkruse — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:28:59 -0000

Matthew's telling of the story builds the case that in Jesus we have the new Israel. He went to down into Egypt and became a refugee, like Israel. He suffers 40 days and nights of testing in the wilderness just as Israel spent 40 years wandering in the wilderness. He, unlike Moses, passes through the Jordan River (his baptism) into his ministry just as Israel passed through the Jordan and became a nation. He chose 12 disciples symbolic of the 12 tribes. The refugee story was central to this narrative. The Jews of this time were scattered across the known world and the ones in Palistine were effectively exiled in their own land under the Romans. They longed to be gathered back from their refugee status and reestablished as a nation. Jesus was offering himself as the modified fulfillment of that aspiration. The story of Jesus as a returned refugee from Egypt is indeed central.

Re: Re-Thinking Mission with Chris Wright

mwkruse — Sat, 21 May 2016 18:04:18 -0000

Good but ultimately unsatisfying. Where is the creative in the these five? #4 states things in terms of repair or the negative (fight injustice, work for reconciliation), not creation or the positive (create a just and flourishing world). #5 is about safeguarding and sustaining, not creating. Where is the work of daily life, lifted up to God as an offering in all of this? It continues to baffle me that the work of daily life so often missing from these types of formulations.

Re: The Secret Shame of Middle-Class Americans

mwkruse — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:15:01 -0000

"net worth—the sum of people’s assets, including their retirement accounts and their home equity"

Just FYI , this is not quite right. Net worth is the sum off all assets MINUS any liabilities. So net worth would be all that is described here, less any debts (car loan, credit card debt, student loan, etc.) outside the mortgage, which was taken into consideration as a part of home equity.

Re: Hans and Ola Rosling: How not to be ignorant about the world - Kruse Kronicle

mwkruse — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:04:56 -0000

So glad you enjoyed it. I have been following Rosling for ten years. He now has several great videos out there from about 4 minutes long to an hour. Have you seen is video about the washing machine? One of my favorites: https://www.youtube.com/wat...

As to being an actuary, I once had to calculate an entire life expectancy table using only a calculator for a class in grad school, studying demography. I recommend he use a computer. ;-) Also, remind him there are only three types of actuaries: Those who can count and those who can't. :-)

Re: Why I Am Still a Christian

mwkruse — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:54:28 -0000

Good stuff. Thanks.

Re: Just Arrived!

mwkruse — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:40:43 -0000

Congratulations! So when do we get the audio book with you narrating?

Re: On Being Single: Kelley Goewey

mwkruse — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:58:07 -0000

I had similar thoughts, John. My wife and I are a childless couple who married in our late twenties (so we had a few years being single) I have long felt the big divide in the church is between parents and the childless. Many adult relationships are formed through interactions of parents with the parents of their children's friends. Not being single, you don't participate in programming for singles. It takes considerable work to develop relationships. Their are barriers to fellowship if you aren't part of a nuclear family.

Re: Social Justice: According to whom? Which kind?

mwkruse — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 10:23:17 -0000

Justice is not about fidelity to a set of particular policy prescriptions. Saying you support strict gun control, a mandatory $15 an hour living wage, and a ban of fossil fuels doesn’t make you an advocate of social justice. It makes you a progressive! Social justice is recognizing that all of creation is God’s and that all human beings are in God’s image. It is about seeking the welfare and flourishing of all creation and humankind. Do the policies you advocate genuinely and empirically produce welfare and flourishing? And even if they do, are they the optimal or only policies that do? Subscription to a list of policy positions does not equate to social justice.

Furthermore, justice is often about polarities; balancing interacting forces that are seemingly opposed but each necessary. I say I’m for “economic equality,” yet you can frame economic equality in three mutually exclusive ways.

Uniformity – Everyone gets exactly the same.
Merit – People get what they earn.
Need – People get what they need.

Equalize on any one of these and the other two will not be equal. Which is the socially just framing?

But economics isn’t just about distribution. Everything we use requires the transformation of matter, energy, and data from less useful forms to more useful forms by human beings. Abundance is human generated so how do distribution ethics affect the degree of abundance generated for distribution? And if it is exclusively about productivity and abundance, what are we saying about the image bearers who for whatever reason may be on the low-productivity end of the human bell curve? Furthermore, if we are to embrace that polarity framework then we must also realize that a policy that may be appropriate today may not be the correct answer tomorrow. Polarities are constantly in motion. Absolute loyalty to a set of policies is not social justice. It is ideology.

Social Justice is about seeking the mind of God in all we do. It is about exhibiting that mind as best we can as individuals and communities striving for shalom. I know many progressives who bristle when they hear conservative Christians call themselves “biblical,” clearly suggesting progressives are not biblical. Progressives describing themselves as the champions of “social justice” are the progressive form of conservatives claiming to be “biblical.”

Re: Faith Meets Globalization

mwkruse — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 08:20:37 -0000

I appreciate the ordinary life focus and the focus on globalization, but I disagree with the characterization of globalization.

First, “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” Global income inequality has been shrinking. Yes, the people in 99th percentile income (globally) have seen a great increase in income. But the people in the 10th to the 70th percentiles have seen comparable growth. The group that has stagnated is the percentiles just below the top 1%, namely the middle class in developed nations. The poor are not getting poorer. Extreme poverty is in rapid decline. See this chart at Pew for graphic representation: http://www.pewresearch.org/... I would challenge or qualify other claims made in the remainder of the list of globalization consequences, but one other in particular.

Second, “… cultural homogenization deconstructs local cultures, tradition is devalued, ...” From what I read and observe, globalization pulls in opposite directions. Yes, there is a homogenization of economic connection. Is this colonization? This implies hostile takeover. If I observe that using clean water improves my health and I embrace its use, have I been colonized by sanitation advocates? If I see markets do a far superior job have of delivering economic goods, have I been colonized when I embrace them? I’m not suggesting that colonization isn’t present but I think colonization overstates the case.

Long before globalization, there were powers in every culture that sought to dictate “the narrative” for society and to drive out competing narratives. Globalization has meant that minority factions can now coalesce and promote their own narratives. Because of globalization, minority factions have access to resources and audiences they never had before. Instead of a homogenization under the market, we have cultural balkanization with people sorting themselves into like-minded political/religious factions. With no grand narrative to hold things together, and with each group’s narrative being a “minority view,” it becomes harder to have a sense of transcendent meaning. Materialism isn’t up to that task.

I agree with the call to focus on ordinary life but with globalization, I think the bigger issue is cultural balkanization, not market homogenization.

Re: Kingdom without King, Kingdom without Church

mwkruse — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:21:50 -0000

God created humankind in God's image and ever since we have been trying to return the favor. It is all too easy to put our politics in God's mouth. The church would do far better to continually ask good questions and live distinctly different lives, than getting in bed with political powers to advance agendas.

Re: Should We Strive for Income Equality?

mwkruse — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:47:39 -0000

Sanders trumpets the Nordic economic model. I think the model has things to commend. But Sanders policies do not follow it.

Yes, Nordic countries have high personal taxes (and value added taxes) and publically fund a number of benefits for their citizens. But they also are the leaders in free trade and business friendly environments.

Sanders wants to make taxes more progressive. Nordic income taxes models are very flat. Sanders wants protectionism and greater regulation. Nordic countries are models of free trade. Sanders wants to tax corporations at rates much higher than Nordic countries and he wants to set a minimum substantially higher than any other OECD country. In short, he wants to up public spending while killing the engine that produces the revenue to fund that spending.

Furthermore, the Nordic countries are stable but struggling. Three years ago Denmark’s left-center government cut tax rates for the wealthiest Danes. Rates were so high that as Danes reached middle-age they would retire. The after-tax income was not enough to motivate them to keep working. The tax-cut was to give them incentive to work longer and generate more taxes. Nordic countries are quietly privatizing more and more services. In the face of Nordic demographics, the model is unsustainable.

While it is true that Nordic citizens all receive a quality education (among other benefits) where few are left out, the culture also tends to discourage the talented from truly excelling. Innovation is a challenge. Denmark has 5 million people with more than 90% sharing the same language and ethnic traditions. A spate of social scientist have recently observed that Scandinavians tend to do well as a community when they go to settle elsewhere no matter the economic model, suggesting that cultural values maybe more significant than economic policies. Can Nordic models truly be ramped up for a country like the US?

Sanders is not promoting the Nordic model. He is promoting the American liberal model that took hold in the 1930s. Republicans are a tax-cut one-trick-pony. Neither ideology deals well with the need to develop human capital and create a dynamic globally integrated 21st Century economy.

Re: America’s New Public Intellectual: Miroslav Volf

mwkruse — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:12:14 -0000

I'll second the nomination. Where do I vote?

Re: Should We Strive for Income Equality?

mwkruse — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:21:52 -0000

I think you identify some important points but I think your lens is too small. You are looking only at the USA.

If we look at income patterns globally (at least prior to 2008) we do indeed see that the top fraction of the income distribution has experienced big gains. But the sixty percent of people at about 10% to 70% have seen similar increases, even higher in some parts of this distribution. The poor are not getting poorer. Globally inequality is shrinking. The percentage of people living on $1.90 (real dollars) a day went from about 40% in 1990 to less than 10% today. The issue is the group from about 75%-95% in the distribution, namely the middle-class in developed nations. The have seen limited growth, and even slight decline for some parts of this distribution.

Technology and globalization are radically transforming the economies and the global economy. Middle-class workers are getting a double whammy. Technology is transforming their employment prospects from one angle and the rise of 100 of millions of new and increasingly skilled workers in the world with whom they now compete is hitting them from another angle.

Furthermore, living standards are not affected only by wage income. More and more compensation in the USA and other developed nations is coming from benefits from either the workplace or government that don’t count as income. Living standards also improve if we pay less for goods and services than we otherwise would have. The middle-class has had some improvement in their living-standards due to this.

Sanders and other populists are myopic. This isn't primarily a problem evil conservative policies in the US or UK. They are trying resurrect technical fixes of the last century to the adaptive challenges of this century.

Disqus - Latest Comments for mwkruse

Re: David Bentley Hart and Universalism: This Week

Re: Michael Kruse: Business People 7

Re: Michael Kruse: Business People 5

Re: Michael Kruse: Business People 4

Re: Michael Kruse: Business People 4

Re: Michael Kruse: Business People 3

Re: Michael Kruse: Business People 1

Re: John S. Watkins Drugs at Brookside Shopping District

Re: For Our White Friends Desiring to Be Allies

Re: More thoughts on Tim&nbsp;Keller

Re: Why people prefer government to markets

Re: Fox &amp; Friends Debates Whether Jesus Was Really A Refugee

Re: Fox &amp; Friends Debates Whether Jesus Was Really A Refugee

Re: Re-Thinking Mission with Chris Wright

Re: The Secret Shame of Middle-Class Americans

Re: Hans and Ola Rosling: How not to be ignorant about the world - Kruse Kronicle

Re: Why I Am Still a Christian

Re: Just Arrived!

Re: On Being Single: Kelley Goewey

Re: Social Justice: According to whom? Which kind?

Re: Faith Meets Globalization

Re: Kingdom without King, Kingdom without Church

Re: Should We Strive for Income Equality?

Re: America’s New Public Intellectual: Miroslav Volf

Re: Should We Strive for Income Equality?

Re: More thoughts on Tim Keller

Re: Fox & Friends Debates Whether Jesus Was Really A Refugee

Re: Fox & Friends Debates Whether Jesus Was Really A Refugee