Disqus - Latest Comments for jurisnaturalist

Re: Proclaiming Jubilee in the Midst of Foreclosures

jurisnaturalist — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:09:23 -0000

Sir,
My life is an open book. I sign often with my real name, Nathanael Snow. I regularly open my home to those in need. I have said before that the right solution is to sacrifice personally.
Please forgive the impersonal tone of my earlier comment. If it is you who are in need, please let me know, and I will see what I can do for you.
ndsnow@gmail.com
Or my publicly published email at George Mason University where I am a student:
nsnow1@gmu.edu
To be clear, you are right: it is unjust for the banks to have their debts forgiven.
You are also right: my ego gets easily overblown.
You are right again: it is sometimes hard to meet our mortgage, and we have relied on the help of others.
And again: I have the vestiges of racism on me, though I confess they are sinful and in need of redemption.
Again: I struggle to love. I want to desperately, and submit to the love of Christ moving through me in my better moments.
Finally: Let me entreat rather than condescend.
Nathanael Snow

Re: Proclaiming Jubilee in the Midst of Foreclosures

jurisnaturalist — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:27:21 -0000

A lot of this issue depends on one's perspective of the current recession. Perhaps the housing bubble pop was necessary to correct a mis-allocation of resources into the housing sector. If so, then there may need to be a corrective period where assets change hands until resources are correctly priced. Much of what is happening now may serve to slow-down the corrective process!
Banks refusing to re negotiate mortgages because they are hoping to get bailed out again prevents this process, and so does resisting foreclosure.
What to do? Again, invite the evicted into your homes. Oppose interventionist policies. Let the market do its job. Wait.

Re: Proclaiming Jubilee in the Midst of Foreclosures

jurisnaturalist — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:16:43 -0000

I, too would like to see more renegotiations rather than foreclosures. I'm afraid the same government money which the banks received might also give them the incentive to foreclose more often. The complications of arbitrarily allocated taxpayer funds are nearly impossible to entangle. Part of why I dislike them so much. There's no way to demonstrate how the secondary consequences were caused by the primary influences.

I think calling lenders "predatory" goes too far. It suggests fraud. Most borrowers voluntarily got in over their heads and should not be bailed out. The exceptions must not influence the decision of the rule.

I think "getting in the way of evictions" is an attempt to put pressure on politicians, perhaps to force banks to write off foreclosures?

Honestly, I have a hard time identifying how Rosemary was treated unjustly. She had a rough break, and many around her are having a rough time, too. But that is not an injustice.

Re: Proclaiming Jubilee in the Midst of Foreclosures

jurisnaturalist — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:06:29 -0000

I agree that following precedes regeneration, though by following I usually think of a curious bystanding watching and listening rather than praxis. I think you would say that the way one comes to regeneration is by a re-forming of the imagination through imitation and practice. Close?
Do you really think banks should defraud their investors by writing off all foreclosures? I just don't see that as working out well. I also don't see this strategy of demonstrating sacrifice as nearly as compelling as the sacrificial act which either pays off the loan or invites the evicted to live with them.
It strikes me as an attempt to manipulate the political mechanism through popular opinion rather than an act of subversion.

Re: Proclaiming Jubilee in the Midst of Foreclosures

jurisnaturalist — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:44:09 -0000

Mark, Good to see you here at sojo.
I agree that Christians should practice jubilee and debt forgiveness. But should we demand this from unbelievers? How should we combat injustice? Is it not by laying down ourselves? Why not pay off the mortgage instead of the protest?
I don't remember many of the particulars of the situation, but it seems asking the world to adopt a christian ethic of forgiveness is no better than insisting the world adopt the christian ethic of monogamy or abstinence.
It's not that they should, but won't. It's that they CAN'T apart from regeneration!
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail

Re: What we Deserve?

jurisnaturalist — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:50:57 -0000

1. You are right that Americans should not suppose God has a peculiar blessing or curse reserved for them, especially based on what their government does. God is no respecter of nation - states. He uses them like pawns sometimes, but that way of thinking has entirely married the church to the state. It is superstitious at best.
2. The genocides performed by Europeans, and the enslavements which ensued, represented a redistribution of the existing wealth of the land at that time. The oppressors were made wealthier, the victims were made poorer. This, it must be noted, was a transfer.
3. The prosperity enjoyed by most Americans today can not have derived from what was stolen. A limited and precise quantity was reallocated. Whenever a transfer is enacted by force in modern times we recognize a net loss of wealth, never a gain. If gain were feasible it could also have been achieved without force. We must say that net wealth was diminished as a consequence of the theft.
What came next did not depend in any way upon the reallocation of resources by force. It was the creative energies of human minds which were relatively free from government restrictions which invented improved methods of production. It need not have been Europeans who came up with these ideas. If they had not been oppressed the natives or the slaves might just as likely have been the inventors. Indeed, all of us should have been better off had their creative energies likewise been free to invent. They might be the wealthier among us, though social mobility is part of what has encouraged invention, had they not been robbed.
My point is that we are not wealthy because we stole from them. We are worse off for it. Our prosperity has been created by positive forces, and ought not to be shunned or a source of shame. What we do with our prosperity is another story.
Your story is too simplistic, and requires alteration. The main point if it, however, that worrying about God's position in relation to nation - states is vain, is quite correct. We can arrive at this same conclusion by rejecting the concept of nation states as pagan from the get-go. It is a much easier argument, drives straight at the heart of state-worship idolatry, and does not conflate issues which have no bearing on the argument at hand.

Re: The Prodigal Consumer

jurisnaturalist — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:01:54 -0000

We are agreed. The points of departure are much deeper, and I will have to do much more thorough investigation to understand your perspective.
You rightly identify the real point of departure as whether the market is a power. The trivial response, “no,” is unsatisfying. Where does the onus lie? Well, on the person who is trying to do the persuading, I suppose, and differences in starting places may indeed leave us at loggerheads.
I think I have given an explanation of how emergent phenomenon based on voluntary action can’t hardly be described as a power-over influence. But if we can remove all power-over actions or attempts, perhaps this influence creeps in and changes the situation. I am tempted to move the analysis to game theory - which I may for more publishable works.
I really appreciate the references. I will look into them sometime in the future. I should probably drop the whole discussion for a while, since I have tests to pass, etc.
I found Cavanaugh's On Being Consumed very, very squishy indeed, couldn’t quite finish it.
My reformed position is also something that I really need to investigate more. I left behind (heh) more conservative theological positions (pre-trib, ceasationist, etc.) once I opened up to pacifism. I have not carefully re-structured my systematic theology again since then. Of course, you might challenge the very idea of a systematic theology!
I must be a total modernist. I really want for there to be a theory which expounds how exactly the market can be a power. Mostly it is just asserted that it is. If something other than modernism in thought is applied, I don’t know how conversations like ours could proceed. I want for there to be things we can know.
Oh, well.
Most conversations never get to the place where first premises are exposed, but this one has. Mark and I also once went fairly deep into a conversation, where my “two-Kingdoms” paradigm was exposed. I don’t know exactly what that means, or what the alternatives might be. Mark promised to get back to it someday, but has been busy.
Anyway, thanks.
I’ve reposted our conversation on my blog.
Nathan

Re: The Prodigal Consumer

jurisnaturalist — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:53:26 -0000

Haha! Many Christians who read Rand walk away believing she’s on to something. Few make a leap to anarchism. Fewer still embrace peculiarity. I’m guessing most Christian Randians haven’t read anyone in the pacifist tradition. I have even read Piper on Rand, and he misses several key things to be learned from her.
And, again, you have summarized my position eloquently.
That my thesis provides a guidepost for involvement in the democratic process is most likely the reason I developed it. You may be quite right that we don’t need to be involved. I don’t suppose I shown that we must be. However, if we are going to be involved, I find my thesis most consistent with the Christian Ethic as I understand it. There are several focal points where my understanding may be significantly flawed. The only venue for having my thoughts rigorously tested has been the blogs. (You should see what happens when I make some of these suggestions over at Sojourners or World magazine!)
Perhaps my thoughts are useful for radicals who must converse with conservatives who say they believe in free markets, but really just want to maintain the current oligarchy. Each set of beliefs must be pushed to its limits and tested under various assumptions. Otherwise the robustness of the theory is left unknown.
Anyway, if I have successfully defended my thesis here, I feel very excited indeed. Not only have I had the opportunity to articulate it more carefully than before, but I have learned to be more careful in explaining my assumptions and in drawing logical connections. Most importantly I have shown a way to challenge progressives and fundamentalists on their own terms and to move them toward a purer Christian Ethic.
Thanks for listening.

Re: The Prodigal Consumer

jurisnaturalist — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:26:54 -0000

I probably am not in amongst the flowers, but the vegetables. If I’m going to flower, I’d like it to produce some fruit. I’m probably an eggplant, and not the skinny kind. I taste great once I’ve been grilled (as in this conversation!)

I do accept most of TULIP. I also employ mostly modernist methods of discourse. And I bristle a bit at social construction of reality theories. I’ve also read too much Ayn Rand.

That is, I usually want to hold individuals accountable, and not communities. It seems very difficult to me to relocate the decision-making agency from the individual to the community.

However, I fully recognize that the whole is seldom the sum of the parts. This is actually the vanguard of the sort of macroeconomics being taught by Richard Wager at George Mason University, where I am. He’s a little late to the game, but he’s first among economists. The interactions among independent individuals combine to create macro movements which none of these agents intended. The cars in a traffic jam are all moving forward, while the traffic jam itself is moving backwards.

I do see salvation as a transforming moment in a person’s life. I see empowerment of the Holy Spirit as the invitation to join God in His continuing creative work. I see regeneration as a moment when the self-interested nature of fallen man can be cast off in favor of Christ-interestedness.

With Ayn Rand and other Objectivists I find it inconsistent with human nature for people to act charitably. Most charity is imposed by irresponsible people, or is a signaling of power to the recipients and those who observe the gifting. It is a manipulation, a power-over weapon. Society itself is an aberration, a power-over construct, a squelching of individuality and dignity.

But regenerate people are no longer solely self-interested. We are Christ-interested. We want to do what we see our Father doing, even as Jesus did. We want to have a sensitivity to the Spirit to know what He is doing. We want to say with Brother Lawrence that we don’t even bend to pick up a straw except for the love of God. We do nothing for reward or personal gain. We already have our reward, Christ is our reward! What more could we want? Our charity asks for nothing in return. It seeks no political advantage, favor, or position. We do it in response to the Spirit. We receive joy alone, the sensation of being used by Him, as our motivation.

Rand’s philosophy removes the right of anyone to make a claim on the life of anyone else. The wealthy have no obligation to the poor. The mother has no claim to her son’s produce. All social norms which imply such claims are evil. I’d have to agree that such claims are vehicles for powering-over others, even for the poor to power-over the wealthy.

As believers we first give up our rights to ourselves to Christ, in acknowledgment of His deity and in acceptance of his salvation. We remember this in communion. We then give up our rights to ourselves to the body – the church – and grant them the right to make claims on our life. This is the act of baptism, and the entry point to the community, the only legitimate collective on earth, because it renounces power-over and practices mutual power-under. Some marry and give our spouses the right to make claims on our lives. I count marriage among the sacraments for this reason.

I am resistant to the concept of habit formation in general because I prefer intense sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. Habit forming cannot tell you when not to help the sick person. Yet Jesus did not heal everyone. The goal is not to help and love people, but to love God (ah, here I am reformed again), and to glorify Him. God is sovereign over the suffering of His innocents. We don’t have to save them all. Yet we alone are empowered to save. It is a hard thought to know that some will not be saved.

Now, Romans 13. I often backpedal from anarchism at this point to a minarchism including courts which operate according to common law processes. God provided Israel with Judges and with a basic set of laws, out of which the people could count on protection of property and enforcement of contracts. He also established precedents and appeals processes.

So the authority wields the sword for justice. Some anarchists suggest the function of courts could be decentralized and subjected to market discipline. It may be possible. But I can accept a monopoly among courts.

Romans 13 is mostly telling the Christian that the method for practicing the gospel is not political rebellion. Pay your taxes – just don’t expect them to do any good.

Beyond this I recognize that the unbelievers will construct power-over institutions, despite our power-under attempts to dismantle them. We are to be subject to these institutions, recognizing God’s sovereignty, and to use interactions with these institutions as opportunities to demonstrate to peculiarity of the Christian Ethic. Where such institutions generate injustices were are to step in and offer ourselves as surrogates, or offer to redeem the innocent at our own expense. We are never to rebel. Again, the practice is to constantly push public opinion and policy at the margin in the direction of the ideal, never deceiving ourselves as to the possibility of achieving that ideal. It would be vanity if it were not purely service to Christ.

There is then, no justification for the formation of a movement. There are only individuals choosing to be in community, and to be responsive to the Spirit. There is complete decentralization of action, which God sovereignly directs to His macro-purpose. We are just to obey.

Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Re: The Prodigal Consumer

jurisnaturalist — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:08:23 -0000

Ah, the no-spaces was a mere consequence of my typing my response in word and then cutting and pasting. It may reveal that I am not a Mac man, and that may say a great deal about my sensibilities! I will now hit the enter button twice, and in so doing return to the spaces-between-paragraphs-style.

See!

Re: The Prodigal Consumer

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:11:49 -0000

Your first paragraph has summarized my position brilliantly.
I'm unfamiliar with "reified" and google didn't help. What do you mean?
I like Piper a bit, but my background is mostly Baptist/evangelical, with a strong helping of Calvary Chapel, until I snuck into a class Hauerwas was teaching at Duke.
I attend a Presbyterian church, but still doubt I know how to spell presyptyrian correctly. I also ask a lot of questions that surprise people in Sunday School.
How would you contrast our different perspectives on regeneration? These fundamentals are often the key to understanding the rest of the conversation.

Re: The Prodigal Consumer

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:43:40 -0000

Of course a pure form of capitalism does not exist. There does not exist a pure form of anything, save Christ.
I want to point out that certain systems are dependent upon central direction, and others emerge spontaneously. I claim that those which emerge spontaneously are better reflections of human nature as it really is. Power-over influences distort these reflections. Free markets emerge spontaneously in the absence of too-strong power-over agents. Free markets are the exact image of how people would interact with one another if power-over were suppressed. Altruistic cooperation is emphatically not how self-interested individuals (unregenerate) would interact if power-over were suppressed.
So, in our interactions with public policy it makes more sense to try to encourage public opinion toward adoption of free markets and other emergent voluntaristic mechanisms rather than the expansion of political franchises and privileges.
For example, as Christians we can recognize that the state affords a privilege to married couples which functions as a discount coupon on transactions with the state. That such a privilege is denied to homosexuals should not make us want to expand the franchise and provide the privilege to homosexuals as well, but rather to repeal the privilege altogether.
Again, when some complain that illegal immigrants take advantage of welfare programs, we ought not to encourage the state to extend the welfare programs to all, but rather to repeal them to all, and assume full responsibility for the least of these ourselves.
Whether or not any such changes in policy ever take effect, we at least have a right understanding of what the ideal is in each debate and can, by making an argument for radical practice of the Christian Ethic by Christians, and unfettered free voluntarism for others, challenge every premise of the power-over structure. Such a testimony shuts the mouths of Christian progressives and fundamentalists alike, and surprises those who have never heard the gospel applied to real life and politics so radically.
There is incredible value or clout gained, and amazing opportunity for sharing the gospel, when we adopt such a stance toward policies.
Again there is both an ideal for Christians to adopt, the Christian Ethic, or the gift economy you spoke of, and a separate ideal for Christians to advocate on behalf of the unregenerate – that is, for public policy – which is unfettered voluntarism / anarchism. Any other system advocates for some power-over agent or other. It is this advocacy for the power-over which I cannot abide, which must be rooted out from the church wherever it occurs, which has enslaved evangelicalism, fundamentalism, progressivism, and so many other –isms alike.
We must have an ideal in order to know which direction to push policy in (at the margin – or in individual debates) consistently. Otherwise we wind up pushing in one direction on one issue and then in the opposing direction on a similar issue. Witness the right-to-life / pro-war dichotomy, for example.
What is difficult about all of this is that in the end, only Christians can do volitional good. We have to be brutally honest about the self-interested nature of the unregenerate man. Almost every other system tries to overcome this obstacle by power-over methods. Only anarcho-capitalism allows each person’s self-interest to work to the benefit of his fellow man, and avoids employing the power-over explicitly.
There remains the question of whether the formation of moral imagination by capitalism is a power-over mechanism. If it is, then it is only so implicitly, certainly not explicitly. Perhaps that makes it all the more demonic. I am unclear of the precise way this occurs, and would appreciate being directed to good resources for understanding the mechanisms involved. Too often I hear that such things all occur through narrative, etc. Such arguments are too squishy for me, and would be completely un-compelling to most audiences. I am reluctant to accept or employ them. I might just have to get over that.
I am vitally serious about understanding these issues clearly and honestly. It is my life’s work, most likely. To have Stanley Hauerwas meet James Buchanan, if only conceptually in my writings, would be climactic for me.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Re: The Prodigal Consumer

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:14:44 -0000

Okay, so I'm reading a bit of McCarraher's stuff here. In what I have found he is not laying out a very precise argument as to how the process he claims Capitalism performs actually works. Is there a simple outline of how these claims are linked together somewhere?
One thing I keep coming across is a squishy idea of "formation of moral imagination" or some other such language.
The claim appears to be that dwelling in a Capitalist environment shapes people's morals in such a way that they find their only meaning in work and desire, not even consumption. Window - shopping defines the person living under Capitalism. Do I have that right?
Suppose this is true. What are the alternatives?
Of course, there is the Christian Ethic. We want to have our moral imaginations shaped to match Christ's sacrificial love for others, sensitive to the unctions of the Spirit. But this is only possible for the regenerate soul.
If we live in a pluralistic society (I hate that word), where the majority of unbelievers (and even professing Christians) can not (or have not) adopted the Christian Ethic, and where through the democratic process and the public forum we have the opportunity to help form the legal environment, what sort of economic system ought we to advocate?
Shall we just avoid the discussion altogether? Just direct all of our energies to serving the least of these, and despair of influencing policy for the better? Perhaps.
But supposing we are to get involved. We must advocate voluntarism. We must seek to have privileges repealed. We must seek equality for all under the law. We must seek limits to (if not elimination of) arbitrary political mechanisms, which are the granters of unjust privileges. I perceive each of these as effective power-under methods of serving the poor and oppressed. I also see them as being consistent with pure capitalism. I set distributive justice aside as a peculiar function of the church, as I do all concern for the least of these. While many do, I don’t see why unregenerate people *should* give a damn about the poor or least of these except out of empathy, which is really selfish in its motivations.
McCarraher seems to have been reading all of the wrong economists. Marx and Engels on the one side, and I am supposing the mainstream on the other. I'd recommend looking into Murray Rothbard and Friedrich von Hayek instead. Rothbard, in particular, has as his aim when constructing his capitalist system a "principle of non-aggression" which is entirely consistent with the Christian Ethic, and he’s an Anarchist.
Again, my concern is that in rejecting Capitalism we instead advocate some other more statist system. The question becomes: would we rather the poor be constantly starving – as is the case under statism, or constantly hungry – as McCarraher implies would be their condition under Capitalism.
Inasmuch as both are inferior to them being satisfied, I think we would both prefer them hungry rather than starving. Satisfaction seems to me only possible for the Christian.
Many imagine that the random altruism we observe among people might be organized and systematized in order to make it more effective. Again, this is a pagan desire to concentrate and centralize power, even power for good. I might argue that power-under actions should not and cannot be centralized. To do so is to subjugate them to some other law than the movement of the Spirit. It is to create an idol. All such imaginations should be rejected. We really are much stronger when we don't work together for the sake of working together, but only so much as the Spirit directs us to.
I may simply have a more pessimistic understanding of unregenerate human nature. But my outline works whether or not I am right. Systems which depend upon a more optimistic view of human nature risk failure if they are wrong.
Nathanael Snow

Re: The Prodigal Consumer

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:48:32 -0000

I read the book of James with the rest of the cannon. I'm not hip to terminology like "narrative transaction", but if that means it is keeping people under an ethic of exchange and inhibiting them from moving into an ethic of sacrifice, then you have captured my thought precisely.

I don't know McCarraher, but I will follow the link and see what I think.

I can only defend Capitalism as "the best that unregenerate souls are capable of on their own" and limit the definition of Capitalism to "unlimited voluntary exchange." I don't know how a Christian can argue against unbelievers adopting this ethic of exchange. They are incapable - apart from grace - of anything better. What would you replace it with?

The more loaded definitions of Capitalism - those which are intended to protect some set of vested interests, or those which intend to incriminate one class or another - are not what I am interested in.

I am mostly concerned that the possibility of a pure form of Capitalism is being rejected based upon the mercantilist-empirialist system we now have which is wrongfully labeled "Capitalism."

Nathanael Snow

Re: The Prodigal Consumer

jurisnaturalist — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:58:56 -0000

The Lord warns us when He teaches us to pray to avoid vain repetitions, as the heathen do. Which is directly to the point. The repetitive nature of the rituals of evangelicalism as you have described them are particularly heathen. Or pagan-polytheistic. Let's just say they run against the Christian Ethic.

From the preacher's point of view, such repetition is an easy way to get away with laziness. I heard so many sermons on the prodigal son at one church of my youth, that I groan inwardly whenever I discover I am about to hear one again. Unless, of course, the speaker directs us to consider ourselves the older brother. You have again refreshed me by encouraging me to empathize with the father.

The political message communicated by repetition is static. It says: This is where we are, and where we have been, and as far as we can tell, where we will be. The action required of the believer is continued penitence, and subjection to the father, and His representatives, the preacher, and the state...

The medium of repetition encourages stasis - lack of movement. Apathy.

Capitalism, as the best that unregenerate souls are capable of on their own, is just as easily derailed by stasis and apathy. Capitalism has as its aim the satisfaction of human wants by the most efficient means. When a man becomes apathetic he stops acting productively and becomes nothing but a, a, a consumer.
Capitalism works in such a way that in order for a person to become a consumer he has to act productively for others. But if a person can possibly get for themselves some privilege or entitlement to exact the production of others for themselves for nothing in return, well then its not capitalism any more.

But that the aim is empty - consumption as a satisfaction of spiritual wants - well, that's the old evangelical reading of the prodigal story.

What seems to be true is that evangelicals, amongst others, are failing to move beyond stasis, to move past repentance, into action. The best they seem to achieve is empathy with the older brother. Hardly at all are we encouraged to live like the prodigal's father.
Nathanael Snow

Re: “Sustainability” was not in Jesus´ vocabulary

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:53:46 -0000

I'm probably speaking too much out of my own experience.
In 8 years in ministry in the inner city I said yes to helping way too many times.
I saw abuse by the leadership of churches and ministries way too often.
I had to ask, where can we draw the lines?
I take scripture very seriously, and apply it as the standard by which all things are measured. We must certainly obey the Christian ethic as revealed by scripture.
I discount community greatly. Again, our different histories are informing our different perspectives, so I don't think we are in disagreement. I am more than willing to hear a word from the Spirit spoken through my brother, and tested by scripture.
I believe the benefit is to us, the obedient, when we can be so well tuned to the Spirit. To enter into communion in service the way Brother Lawrence did, for example, would add joy upon joy to us as disciples.
I am hesitant to agree that we might take the complementary course, to serve everyone unless the Spirit says otherwise. Scripture does not describe Christ's ministry this way. Every act was purposeful, direct, specific. His only general work was the cross.
I agree that colonial, patriarchal, and paternalistic motivations tainted my previous service and shaped the way I think about these issues. I have renounced such things, but am still ridding myself of their vestiges.
Perhaps our different perspectives relate to how we might prefer to err. Shall we overdo service and patronize the people we minister to and browbeat the minister? Shall we instead underserve and neglect those who are in need and become somewhat lethargic as ministers? Neither is good.
My conscience requires that I walk the middle path, but lean toward the latter as my weakness is with the former. With you it may be otherwise.
Nathanael Snow

Re: “Sustainability” was not in Jesus´ vocabulary

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 20 May 2009 10:03:41 -0000

We may differ on perspectives pertaining to the contents of the disciples' purse. I rather think they had sufficient means. Plenty of wealthy people were sponsoring Him.
I don't think Jesus chose to do anything other than submit Himself to the Spirit. He only did what He saw His Father doing. I believe we can do the same if we attune ourselves the the Spirit.
We should limit the scope of our work to obeying the Spirit.
We should not feed or care for anyone except we receive direction from the Spirit to do so.
We must remember that God is sovereign over the suffering of His innocents. We don't have to feed or care for them all. Only the ones His Spirit directs us to.
Any other motivation is self-serving, patronizing, and devoid of virtue. This leads to paternalization and loss of dignity for the recipient. Either that or we are motivated by guilt instead of love, the consequences of which are dire.
Perhaps my argument is too charismatic for some. I don't see any way around it.
Nathanael Snow

Re: “Sustainability” was not in Jesus´ vocabulary

jurisnaturalist — Tue, 19 May 2009 23:02:51 -0000

Sustainability is a priestly trait. It falls away from the prophetic mode which can appeal cavalier and prefers order and hierarchy.
The trick is to be actively obeying the Spirit. Can we live as Jesus lived, only doing what He saw His Father in Heaven doing? We don't take the attitude, "we don't do this or that" instead we can say we only do what the Spirit tells us to. The onus switches from the other to ourselves. Now we become responsible to listen to the Spirit! This is as it should be.
Other thoughts:
There were many Jesus did not touch or heal. There was a common purse (Judas Iscariot took care of it) among the disciples.
Was He concerned about sustaining anything?
Nathan

Re: Jubilee in the Midst of Foreclosure

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:06:39 -0000

Excellent! I hate it when we talk past each other. I want to be on the same page as you, understanding how you are relating these different ideas. I also dislike exasperating you with my repeated arguments. I'm sure you can anticipate most of my responses before I write them.
A new article sometime in the future is most welcome.
I find it fascinating how different ideas are interconnected and what certain assumptions can do to later arguments.
Peace.
Nathanael Snow

Re: Jubilee in the Midst of Foreclosure

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:57:10 -0000

I don't know where I'm going wrong with the "two kingdoms" bit. Are there not two kingdoms? Maybe I just have not gotten that far in my reading. I don't think I've ever heard an explanation of the difference.
To what extent does justice require that unbelievers act altruistically? I try to construct a system where what unbelievers do in no way affects the way Christians react.
In other words, I expect unbelievers best possible behavior = self-interest + empathy + common grace (which cannot be rationalized, and is inconsistent with their sinful nature).
Also, I don't expect justice to ever be achieved. I expect the poor to always be with us. But I believe it is grace to us and joy when we participate with God in caring for the least of these.
Again, to what extent should people be protected from their own gambles and bad decisions?
There are fundamental differences in our approach here, and they may be related to what you have identified as the "two kingdom approach" which is shorthand for I-don't-know-what, but am interested in discussing and understanding.
Nathanael Snow

Re: Jubilee in the Midst of Foreclosure

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:17:09 -0000

I didn't realize I am logged in incognito.
How do we identify predation? Whose job is it to identify it? When should a person be allowed to gamble, and how much should they be protected from losing?
Buying a house is always a gamble. It could get hit by a tornado tomorrow. Who should help if it does? Should the bank? Do banks have positive ethical responsibilities or just negative ethical limitations? I'd argue for the latter.
The church alone has positive ethical responsibilities.
You argument that "there are too many" is to justify the means by the ends. This will not do.
God is sovereign over the suffering of His innocents. We are bound to be obedient to His mandates upon us. Prevention of foreclosure is an attempt to justify breach of voluntary contract. That your actions are non-violent does not matter. The appeal is to the law to make exceptions. This is to grant a privilege. Once privilege is permitted it will always seek to expand the franchise. The end is very nasty.
I think your approach is wrong, because it is focussed on the imminent need.
I don't understand what is wrong with flipping houses, so long as the contracts are voluntary.
I also don't understand your desire to patronize people. If people are not made to be responsible all kinds of moral hazards enter into interpersonal relationships. There is nothing wrong with redeeming situations, this is precisely the model Jesus exemplified. He never held back from a creditor his due. To argue that we should encourage such action is just plain wrong.
Nathanael Snow

Re: Jubilee in the Midst of Foreclosure

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:17:50 -0000

I trust that the specifics of the case described justify the actions taken, but the justification given here is inadequate.
Are we to cast aside all institutions for the sake of subversion? Are not contracts to be respected?
Buying anything is a gamble. The buyer ought always to be aware and bear the full burden of responsibility unless it can be show that fraud occurred.
Were these mortgages fraudulent? Maybe some were. I don't know.
It seems that the more radical action would be to stand alongside the woman - and pay her debt for her - or invite her to live with us.
But to steal from the banks is unjust.
And regarding interest, how much would you pay me today for $1,000 delivered in cash a year from now? If your answer is anything other than $1000 (and it should be) then you believe in a natural time-preference rate of interest. The truth is that we value having a good today more than having the good tomorrow, and we should, because tomorrow is less certain.
The mortgage mess is bigger than any of us, but the more people try to maintain the status quo, whether that be home price levels, present allocation of housing, or whatever, the longer the repercussions will carry on.
Wall St. certainly should not have been bailed out by the state. Neither should anyone else, including individual home owners. But the church is free to spend her own resources helping whomever God inspires her to help, using her own resources, which are given of God for this purpose.

Re: Good Reasons to Keep the Faith

jurisnaturalist — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:32:59 -0000

I would never deny that nature demonstrates reciprocal altruism. I think it is unfortunate that the word is used in this way. The fact that "altruism" in this context must be prefaced with "reciprocal" reveals that it is not pure altruism, which anticipates no reciprocal action, nor any reward whatsoever.
Christians believe that they join in the creative acts of God and that the privilege of participation is the blessing. We call it joy.
What the warblers have is an evolutionary mechanism which places greater value on survival of the species than on the individual. Pure altruism isn't interested in its own welfare, or the survival of the species, but only in the other.
I don't see why anyone would voluntarily choose to adopt such an ethic. It requires postponement of various natural urges such sex, food, and sleep. It requires adoption of a frugal quality of life and then forfeits the surplus to others - often complete strangers with no expectation of repayment. It requires adoption of all sorts of strange rituals and practices. No, it is hard to imagine anyone choosing this way of life. Yet 11 men and many women did, despite the imminent threat of personal harm. I know of no species which practices this ridiculous manner of living. If you can point to a journal article along these lines, I would be most appreciative.
Nathanael Snow

Re: Good Reasons to Keep the Faith

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:35:34 -0000

Christian theology says that those who believe have altered human natures. That is, they are no longer self-interested. So, no, they do not behave altruistically because they fear punishment. They behave altruistically because they see themselves as an extension of Jesus' pure altruism, completely self sacrificial to the point of death.
They also do not regard altruism as action which is rewarded. They perceive the alteration of their natures, combined with communion with God as the full expectation of reward.
Of course, most professing Christians believe nothing like this at all, in which case I argue that they do not rightly understand their own beliefs, or the object of their belief.

Re: Good Reasons to Keep the Faith

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:59:41 -0000

Christians should give up any privilege attached to the label, and any afforded to them by law or society. We are to sacrifice all for the least of these.
We should not reject anyone nor end relationships based on their beliefs or changes in belief. To do so is utterly un-Christ-like.
I wonder, why would an atheist demonstrate any altruistic behaviors?