Disqus - Latest Comments for joet

Re: Bush and the Case of the Flying Footwear

Maria Kirby — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:42:30 -0000

I agree. If it were up to me, he would have been impeached a long time ago. I'd be in support of war crimes tribunal even now.

Re: Bush and the Case of the Flying Footwear

joet — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:11:24 -0000

I think ole Bush got off rather lightly.

Re: 2012

joet — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 07:18:47 -0000

I'm not sure about the idea of churches paying off debts - there is only so much money in the kitty, so inevitably people would try to take advantage of the generosity. But what is undoubtedly true is that churches will need to become much more directly involved in assisting those in financial trouble.

Re: The Real Economic Bailout!

jwinton — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:41:16 -0000

Joe,

You've got an impressive clothing/business idea! When I wrote the initial question about textiles, I didn't necessarily expect folks who are actually working to change the fashion industry to comment. I'm glad you did.

Re: The Real Economic Bailout!

joet — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 03:15:26 -0000

Maria, as I understand it the only places where the facilities (to make this recycled nylon) are big enough are in China. I don't think it is possible to do it on a cottage scale. I cannot rationalise sending trash to China for them to process and send back again. But I like your thinking.

You might be interested in the report we are currently writing about recreating a fashion industry as if people matter - see here.

Re: The Real Economic Bailout!

joet — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:58:05 -0000

This is a question I have been thinking about in some depth. Gandhian (which seems to have much in common with Chestertonian distributionist) economics would suggest that we should use the resources we have around us instead of relying on goods from elsewhere, particularly if imports rely on people working for low wages and in bad conditions.

I conclude that we need to do more to support local production - where wages and conditions are (at least supposed to be) better. In terms of materials, we should be more reliant on things we can grow ourselves, and/or materials we can reuse. This depends on where you are - the US has an enormous (and very heavily sprayed) cotton crop, whereas it does not grow in Europe. However, we do have a huge pile of old clothing which could - if we had the motivation - be remade into new clothing.

Coupled to that, I think we have to ask questions about why the poor person is involved in the supply chain when they see so little of the money generated by the global fashion industry. The long term solution is not to continue encouraging them to overproduce disposable fashion for our markets - which in the process make a very small number of people very rich - but to find more sustainable things to do that do not involve exporting to us.

Re: Africa is not a hospice

joet — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:43:40 -0000

Adam, I think sometimes we fail to really appreciate the mess we are in. It is quite true to say that those of us in the 'West' have wealth the really poor (which accounts for nearly half the world population) can barely imagine. What is less clear is how to make meaningful differences to the poor.

As much as those living in absolute poverty are often tied into a trap, we are tied into a trap of wealth - which can be as difficult to see a way out of. Whilst giving money away might at first glance seem attractive, it also brings many complications - eg who are you going to give it to, how, where and why? You are right - we do need to downsize our living for the sake of the poor, but quite how we do that requires significant prayer and thought in my opinion.

Re: Imagination and the Way of Christ

joet — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:15:55 -0000

[sidenote: maybe an editor can hide Jim's address to stop him getting piles of spam?]

Mark, I am struggling to answer your first question. I think because most of our assumptions are not based on words said but on things left unsaid. We assume that everyone wants to progress in their career, that churches need to have buildings, that Christianity is synonymous with being middle class. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that kind of thing, but it just seems to seep into our collective consciousness.

Regarding books, I really like Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer. It is about a little boy who loses his father but finds a clue which leads him on a quest to meet a series of strange and broken people. It made me ache for an end to the journey and to reach home.

But yes, I am also touched by meeting people and their stories of overcoming the odds. Recently I met people from the organisation Servants of Asia's Urban Poor and was touched by their self sacrificial approach. In Egypt, I met Christians who worked quietly below the radar, doing little things which made a real difference to those involved. In India I met a small congregation who were 'doing what they could' - even when that was far less than what was needed to overcome the local issues (yet far more than any other church I have ever seen).

I'm not sure this attitude can be learnt in a classroom.

Re: When is enough enough?

jwinton — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:23:56 -0000

Joe, my weird (poorly worded?) late-night comment was intended to be funny but also to make a point. If my perceptions are correct, at least my point and perhaps the humor wasn't clear. So just in case, here it is: I don't like to think of powerful technologies as modes that lead to complexity (versus simplicity). They usually end up oversimplifying and, therefore, reducing the community and place we belong to. In other words, to use the ipod as an example, the real cost for this piece of machinery should include more than just time and money. But the allure to become sedated (as the Ramones might say) is always lurking. This quote from Wendell Berry is appropriate in that sense. He is referring to an ad (year: 1992) which advertised the use of 'hypertext' as a replacement for the written word:

"Dear reader, I hope you will understand at least somewhat the disgust, the contempt, and the joy with which I have received this news.

"It disgusts me because I know there is no need for such products, which will put a lot of money into the pockets of people who don't care how they earn it and will bring another downward turn in the effort of gullible people to become better and smarter by the way of machinery. This is a perfect example of modern salesmanship and modern technology--yet another way to make people pay dearly for what they already have...

"My joy comes from my instantaneous knowledge that I am not going to buy either piece of equipment. When the inevitable saleswoman comes to tell me that I cannot be up-to-date, or intelligent, or creative, or handsome, or young, or eligible for sexual favors of so fair a creature as herself unless I buy these products, dear reader, I am not going to do it."

I suspect that at least some (if not all) of my comment would be supported by your thesis. If not, that's ok. But those are my two cents (and Berry's).

The quote is from Wendell Berry's book of essays: Sex, Economy, Freedom, and Community (pages xxi-xxii).

Re: When is enough enough?

Maria Kirby — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:30:08 -0000

Joe,
I agree that people often buy new technology for the wrong reasons. When we understand our goals, then we have an appropriate basis to evaluate whether a new technology will help us get there.

I agree that there needs to be a balance between enjoying the ride and reaching the destination. If we're too goal oriented then we miss opportunities that come up a long the way (such as technology that can make the ride easier), but if we're too busy enjoying the ride (exploring new technologies), we never make any progress (in spreading the gospel, etc.).

I hear you calling readers back to the things they learned in kindergarten, that learning to do something well is as important or possibly more important as doing something new. If that is so, I agree. Most of us do better if we avoid either extreme of single mindedly deep or very shallowly broad.

Re: When is enough enough?

joet — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:39:57 -0000

Jason, that is a fair comment. I am not suggesting it as an exclusive theology but as something we need to consider much more carefully than we often do. When such a great proportion of most churches budget is tied into buildings and technologies (video screens, music equipment, etc) asking 'at what point do we stop? ' strikes me as being prophetic but YMMV

Re: When is enough enough?

joet — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:35:45 -0000

Maria, I also like new things. But it strikes me that we are in great danger of ignoring the depth of knowledge by continually focussing on the new. Why do we assume that God wants to do a new thing or say a new thing to us? Maybe he has already said what he needs to say and we just need to listen and take it on board.

And I think part of the problem is that sometimes we are too postmodern for our own good. We enjoy the ride more than reaching the destination and avoid having defined targets and goals. It isn't so surprising that we fail to achieve things so often. Once it has become 'old hat' we're bored of it.

Regarding Ipods, whilst there might well be some people who would find this capacity very useful, surely you would agree it is hardly a mass market necessity. People are being sold something they don't really need on the basis it is 'bigger, sexier, shinier' than the last version.

Re: When is enough enough?

Ben S — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:18:10 -0000

Okay, that's what I thought. I hope I didn't come off as accusing or anything. I appreciate you putting this conviction into words for us.

Re: When is enough enough?

joet — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:11:03 -0000

Ben, this is entirely an exercise in self criticism. I know what I am like and I am constantly struggling to keep focused on the community I want to see rather than the next shiny thing.

Re: Economic Matters: Socializing the Risk or Capitalizing the Reward?

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:45:37 -0000

Court fees. The "system" would be much much smaller because the vast majority of victimless crimes would be washed out of the system. Only actual torts and contract disputes which are worth pursuing would be adjudicated. By forcing the interested party to pony up the courts fees trivial matters fall out. In situations where there are actual injustices and some of the least of these cannot pay the court fees Christians ought to step up. Again, they are only the responsibility of the Christian.
These are illustrative kinds of issues. There is a broad and rich literature on what life-without-the-state might look like among Austrian Economists. All that must be done is to show that "a" solution exists. This does not prove that that particular solution would emerge. We don't know exactly how court fees would be paid, but we can show that there are ways that they might be.

Re: A Christian Presenter at Pagan Pride!?

Al1 — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:40:06 -0000

Urban Dictionary defines skyclad with the following note:
"Some believe that clothing interferes with the natural energies of magick, and that it brings you closer to the Earth.

source: paganwiccan.about.com "

Kinda makes sense.

Re: Economic Matters: Socializing the Risk or Capitalizing the Reward?

joet — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:50:13 -0000

You don't believe in taxation but you recognise courts? How are you proposing to pay for a judicial system without taxation?

Re: A Christian Presenter at Pagan Pride!?

joet — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:12:24 -0000

Interesting. Maybe someone could explain the deal with 'ritual nudity' which I've never understood.

Re: Economic Matters: Socializing the Risk or Capitalizing the Reward?

joet — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:04:42 -0000

$700 billion sounds like a lot of money, particularly if the tax-payer isn't going to get it all back. It would only cost $50 billion to meet all the millennium development goals..

Re: The Death of Evelyn and the Failure of the Church

joet — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:43:06 -0000

I understand that one does need the will to change, but how do you know this person didn't have it? How do you know it wasn't taking all of her resources to get through the day? If she was just heavy laden, was she not entitled to a little rest? I'm not convinced the church's role is to change people, but to love them.

Re: The Man and The Couch

joet — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:58:10 -0000

There isn't enough space on the couch for everyone.

Re: The Man and The Couch

joet — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:26:43 -0000

The simple answer is I don't know, Nate. I think things might be better if we sofa-sitters didn't exist.

I like your parable. It reminds me of a script my friend once wrote which was about an evil Blofeld character who had invented the world's most powerful weapon - the armchair. Bond sat in the chair and was bombarded with images of pain and suffering, and ultimately was shaken but not stirred.

Re: Striving for a Just Peace without the Myth of Redemptive Violence

wmcdivsdnt — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:26:02 -0000

Thanks Joet. There are certainly a lot of falsehoods in the book of Job, too, aren't there? So as interpreters, we have the high task of trying to discern what the message of Scripture actually is. That means taking it book by book, rather than word for word. In a book like Job, with so much falsehood and then so much figurative language on top of that, I would still want to argue that as a package it is still canonical for us; it's God's word. That gets even harder with Joshua--I feel you there.

As for the traditionally orthodox teaching on eternal punnishment, I can identify with your concerns. The subject doesn't come up in this paper. I guess it could be said, as you wrote, that the violence of hell is not redemptive and so it would not be evidence for a "myth of redemptive violence" in Scripture. Personally, I have argued against the traditional view on hell, opting instead for an annihilationist perspective like John Stott, another evangelical who is conservative on scripture but also a pacifist. By the way, this position I've taken means I must search for ministry positions outside my current denomination, so if you hear of anything...

Scripture describes God as being all knowing and all powerful but also genuinely saddened at human violence in Genesis 6. I don't have it figured out, but I also don't limit that divine saddness to simply figurative language. As you say, he is outside of history, but he is also inside of history, getting bounced around with humanity, acting and reacting and moving things toward his intended conclusion.

As far as the vengeful sacrifice thing goes, there are several ways that the Bible describes the atonement, and they're not all violent. Jesus is our example, our champion and conquerer, our purification, our sacrifice and substitution. The Old and New Testaments borrowed from but then transformed the concepts of propitiation present in the cultures around them. Christianity, and Hebrew religion before it, do not teach that an angry God demands payment but a loving, merciful Jesus steps in the way and takes the violence upon himself.

After the liberation of the Exodus, in his covenant with Moses, the God of Israel promised to deliver his people from imperialistic oppression if they remained faithful but to allow them to fall into the hands of their enemies if they did not. That is what happened in the exile, and that is the state Israel still felt they at least partially were in when Jesus showed up. By dying as a victim of injustice at the hands of the Romans and Israel's corrupt leadership, Jesus took the punnishment promised in the Mosaic covenant--not direct divine violence, but temporary divine abandonment to human imperialistic violence--so that he could win for Israel the right to full liberation (and conquer death along with the one who held power over people through the fear of death). That liberation, he taught, would not come by killing Greeks and Romans or feeling morally superior to them, but by loving them and bringing them into the people of God free of charge.

Re: Striving for a Just Peace without the Myth of Redemptive Violence

joet — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:35:05 -0000

I didn't look closely to the image until you pointed it out, Bill. I'm not sure it has much to do with redemptive violence - presumably those alluded to were not looking for any kind of redemption. It didn't bother me, maybe it should have.

Regarding your other points. First, I find the notion that conservatives 'accept all Scripture as God's word' disingenuous. There are bits which cannot be from God - eg words of Satan.

On punishment: however evil and bad you have been, nothing deserves an eternal (ie never-ending) punishment. It cannot be just as the punishment simply bears no relation to the crime. And if there is no parole, it is also pretty pointless. Nobody gets any better in an eternal hell, there is no hope of any improvement.

On God's plan: if God is omnipresent, omnipotent and outside of time, how can he have been surprised at the results of his actions and/or have acted in a way that he knew would not produce the desired results?

From my point of view, the God who demands a vengeful sacrifice is not the God of Love and Justice. If our atonement theories make it sound like that, they are wrong. Equally, the God who encourages the faithful to take part in acts of barbarity and war cannot be the God we see in Christ the Prince of Peace who calls all who follow to lay down their lives not to lay down other's lives to protect our own standard of living.

Re: My Political Memoir

joet — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 05:18:19 -0000

I don't think there is a problem with wealth creation in a fundamental sense. In a community where everyone has access to exactly the same resources and the same training and ability, I guess there would be no opportunities to make money. Given that currency was originally a proxy for bartering work and products, inequalities are inevitable when some are more driven, intelligent, hard-working, creative etc than others.

However, our economy is not based on rewarding the hard-working. Our economy is based on a global system of Apartheid where those who work hardest see least of the benefits and wealth is mostly accumulated in the hands of the few. If our wealth has been accumulated by the exploitation of people (and/or natural resources, which often goes hand-in-hand), it is undoubtedly a bad thing.

Unfortunately, we all unwittingly participate in this evil, and it is hard to see how to break down the system. The millions who barely scrape together a life so that we can retail products to sustain our standard of living are simply disposable parts of the machinery. Those at the bottom (and there is a big bottom with almost 3 billion people below the $2 per day poverty threshold) are often directly or indirectly victims of our own vanity and greed.