The Bleeding Heart Conversation

March 13, 2011, by No comments yet

I couldn’t be more excited about the conversation going on at the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog. The BHL blog is an ongoing conversation between libertarians who share many of the same social concerns with those on the Progressive Left. So far the conversation has been lively and engaging.

I’m excited because my own spiritual and ideological journey has taken me down a path that has led to a very interesting dichotomy. Eight years ago I was being drawn toward and have affirmed some progressive theology. But when it came to the social policies advocated by many social justice Christians, there seemed to be a disconnect. I soon realized that in order to assess ways to achieve socially just outcomes, the key is to develop an economic way of thinking.

I discovered that the Austrian school was not only engaging in its style and presentation, they carried with them the necessary skills to assess the social concerns I had. Austrian economists (and libertarian economists in general) have the verbal acuity to explain the makeup of our social DNA.

Art Carden is one of the most penetrating writers in the Austrian school. Art makes easy that which is often difficult to wrap one’s brain around, with fewer words and elegant prose. This week he wrote a piece called “Libertarian Compassionomics?” in his Forbes.com column which was picked up and responded to my Matt Zwolinski at BHL. I heartily recommend reading Art’s piece, then Matt’s, then Art’s response, and join the conversation.

Conversations are journeys. They lead us to truth, not because truth is the destination, but because it is found in the ongoing process that takes place among those who are passionately committed to the truth and to the conversation.

Sometimes the point of the journey isn’t the destination.

To Hell with Rob Bell?

February 28, 2011, by 18 comments

Rob Bell isn’t the first to write a book on the doctrine of hell. In 2010 Sharon Baker wrote Razing Hell. Brian McLaren wrote one in 2005. Other titles by various authors here, here, and here. But since Rob Bell is more broadly recognized in evangelical circles, he will draw both contempt and praise on a larger scale. In late March 2011 the Mars Hill pastor and creator of the Nooma videos will release his book titled, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. He introduces the book in a 3-minute video here.

Needless to say the video and the upcoming release of this book has created a firestorm of controversy. John Piper briefly tweeted: “Farewell Rob Bell” with a link to Justin Taylor’s pre-book release comments on Rob Bell’s book. Taylor pays backhand compliments to Bell for laying his cards on the table rather than using “studiously ambiguous” terminology. Taylor and Piper are no doubt attempting to get a head start on the controversy before the book is even released. They will be happy to pronounce an indictment on Rob Bell’s theology once it is “on the table.” And rest assured, that indictment will come not a moment too late.

Rob Bell has dared to evaluate a theology that has troubled many Christians and non-Christians alike. Even those who believe in a hell of eternal torment probably don’t want to believe in such a fate for the unbelieving. They likely believe it “because the Bible says so” or because they’ve been given sufficient reason to believe that the character of God is not reduced by believing in such a doctrine. So why would a sincere and concerted effort to discover the biblical and justified view of the doctrine of hell be met with such contempt? What does John Piper, Justin Taylor, and others like them have to lose if Rob Bell is right? What is threatening about an alternate view of God’s justice and judgment that is so worthy of contempt?

If the traditional view of hell—that God sends people to an eternal conscious state of torment for not following Jesus—is indeed biblical and the true end of the sinful and unredeemed, then not only is the fate of all individuals at stake, but the very character and nature of God is at stake. If the traditional view of hell is unbiblical and not the reality for those who are not called “Christians,” the character and nature of God is still at stake. At the end of the day (or the end of time), the doctrine of hell has more to do with the character and nature of God and our relationship to God. Neither side of this debate would disagree that the stakes are high. God, not hell, is on trial here.

It is no ironic thing that the defenders of the traditional view of hell are already damning Rob Bell’s new view before the book has even been released. It is sad, really, and a poor example of Christian charity, much less a demonstration of brotherly love toward a fellow believer (so far they haven’t demoted Bell to apostate). Instead of seeing this initiative as silly or unfair, Taylor and Piper see it as being faithful to the testimony of the Bible. Do they really think Rob Bell doesn’t himself believe that he is being faithful to the biblical witness? Do they really think that Rob Bell has cast aside the Bible simply because he believes the Bible gets it wrong? Or will Bell simply say, “The Bible teaches us something different“? Most ironic is that Piper’s entire ministry is based on redefining the way we think about our relationship to God! Piper’s Christian hedonism is so contrary to the way we think God is, but teaches what I heartily affirm is how God is truly to be understood. It’s not about us, it’s about God.

This is why Rob Bell’s new book is such an important contribution to the debate over hell.

Kudos to Rob Bell. Even if he’s wrong.

[UPDATE: David Sessions has a great piece called "What the Rob Bell Controversy Says About John Piper." Julie Clawson also wrote about a recent experience related to the Rob Bell controversy, and shares her thoughts on hell.]

Review: Little Star

February 15, 2011, by No comments yet

Little Star by Anthony DeStefano is a children’s book that teaches in clever ways the biblical adage “the first shall be last and the last shall be first.” The main character, a little insignificant star, always behind in brightness and significance, is surprised and delighted to know that he has the privilege and responsibility to shine a light on a new King, baby Jesus, who was born in a lowly stable under circumstances less-than desirable for a king.

The author tells this brief story by paralleling the feelings of a star who feels lonely and dejected and the experience of a king Jesus. By focusing his light on the baby Jesus, the unexpected type of king, Little Star begins to find his purpose, and shines ever so brightly. While the ending feels a bit anti-climactic for an adult reader, children will be able to connect the meaning of the story of Jesus and the star that many Christians place on their Christmas tree each year.

The artwork is good but not vibrant in all areas, and the typeface was non-unique and did not feel part of the design of the book. The story has plenty of potential but the ending could have been worked out a little more. While not destined to become a classic the story provides a cute but cliché way of telling the story of the Christmas tree star.
Disclaimer: “I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review.”

Review: The Sacred Meal

February 15, 2011, by No comments yet

Having come from the stereotypical non-Orthodox, non-Anglican protestant faith, whose theology believes that celebrating communion is merely a remembrance of what Jesus did on the cross, I am always eager to find books that reveal communion (or Eucharist, in non-protestant verbiage) to be something more.

Through stories and anecdotes of her decades of experience, Nora Gallagher shows us in The Sacred Meal that communion and community are so intertwined that it is nearly impossible to celebrate the former without the latter. She writes from the vantage point of many decades of wrestling with the meaning of communion, so she does not engage the theological issues head-on (though she does acknowledge them). She looks past the debate and focuses on practice of communion, which is the purpose of the series. The highlight of the book is understanding and embracing the experience of practicing communion within community. Communion joins believers together as a sacred meal so that they can live a sacred faith.

Gallagher’s work will be disappointing to those looking for answers to the debates. For those willing and able to look past the theological details and embrace the experience as a liberating practice of the Christian faith, she offers a fresh perspective any reader will appreciate.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com <http://BookSneeze®.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Justice, Power, and Boundaries

January 28, 2011, by 5 comments

“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Lev. 19:15

It doesn’t take much time to notice that the world is much darker than what God created it to be. Our world today is a far cry from Eden, a place of peace—often described as shalom in the Hebrew Scriptures—where humans walked with God and knew God intimately. From the beggar on the street to the rich man with no love in his life, the shalom of God often feels distant. There is poverty, hunger, slavery, and oppression all over the world.

The Scriptures reveal to us God’s plan to restore shalom. When Jesus enters the story, he reveals “the kingdom of God,” a peaceful kingdom that stands in contrast to the violent kingdoms of this world. Jesus’ own actions were peaceful and non-aggressive. He personally served the poor, left his own family to serve the needs of others, and made company with the outcasts at his own social and cosmic expense. He called on others to voluntarily sacrifice their lives and follow him. His followers were expected to be beacons of light throughout the world, shining love and peace wherever they went.

As followers of Jesus today, we must address the lack of peace and justice in the world with Jesus as our model. Our task is to seek peace, restore brokenness, and bring to justice those who trample on others. Our calling is to also enroll others to join in this endeavor. Yet with all things involving human beings, there are limits to what we can do with and to others. If we are to engage the world, Christians must ask a very critical question: what boundaries are there to seeking justice?

In order to answer this question appropriately we must deal with the imbalance of power in society. Injustice stems from abuses of power. Libertarians and Christians believe that no human has the right to exercise power over another human by means of force or coercion. In order to truly achieve justice, individual freedom must be promoted. Justice itself hinges on the freedom of individuals to exercise their respective wills. Denying this freedom not only tramples human dignity, it pushes justice farther away.

So then, what should the Christian’s attitude be toward the State’s role in the fight for justice? A consistent ethic of peace would have us exercise the power of government only to punish those who have offended the natural right of freedom. Outside of this we have no right to impose our will upon another. If each person is God’s image-bearer with unsurpassable worth, we are duty-bound to not trample upon them, whether on our own or by leveraging the State to suit our preferences. Leo Tolstoy believed that “Christianity, with its doctrine of humility, of forgiveness, of love, is incompatible with the State, with its haughtiness, its violence, its punishment, its wars.” Christians should resist looking to the State for power to fulfill the mandates of the gospel.

Those who partner with the State in order to achieve a measure of justice have an impoverished imagination. Instead of advancing the kingdom of God peacefully, they seek to restore justice by controlling the rights and property of others. If it is truly the vocation, calling, and responsibility of the people of God to not only live out but carry out God’s justice, why would we want to delegate that responsibility to an entity whose primary mechanism of operation is threat of force? Christians must think long and hard about how they regard the State.

The Kingdom of God is about greatness through servanthood, loving by sacrificing. Changing the world is not done with might or power but through love and sacrifice. This is why we ought to reject government-centered solutions to social justice.

Christians have succumbed too often to the temptation of power, believing that if we are on God’s side, our power over others is justified. It is time that Christians embrace the Kingdom of the Cross (driven by servanthood, sacrifice, and love) and abandon the Kingdom of the Sword (driven by force, violence, and coercion). The power of the gospel to change the world is not made manifest through violence but through the freedom to love and serve others.

(This post was originally written in 2009 and was revised and republished at libertarianchristians.com.)

A Ray of Hope for Pro-Life position

January 13, 2011, by No comments yet

Rich Nathan at Red Letter Christians writes of the irony that in spite of the fact that most young people are decidedly more liberal than their parents and grandparents about everything, they are more conservative with one particular topic.

Abortion.

Yes, you read that correctly. While the bulk of social justice advocates are more permissive about things like gay marriage, marijuana use, and sexual ethics, on one issue they are more conservative.

Why? Cited is the author of the study who published the statistics:

Because young adults have grown up in a world of widely available contraceptives, pregnancy is generally seen as a failure to take responsibility for one’s choices.  So, in many cases, young adults feel that abortion amounts to an unwillingness to accept the consequences for one’s own choices rather than a so-called tragic moral dilemma.  “Taking responsibility for one’s behavior” has great potential as a message for increasing the valuing of life among young adults.

Read the entire article here.

Progressives, Libertarians, and God’s Economy

January 7, 2011, by 1 comment

When progressives emphasize social justice by using collectivist phrases like “common good” and “caring for our neighbor,” the typical reaction of libertarians is to focus on their wrongheaded policies and methodology. But libertarians who call themselves followers of Jesus can greatly benefit by understanding an important aspect of the gospel. If the good news of Jesus Christ is sufficient for personal transformation, it is sufficient for social transformation as well. But progressives fail to produce workable and ethical social reform, whereas libertarians offer ideas that are not only compatible with social justice efforts, they offer an ethical social framework within which to produce it.

In contrast to the overly emphasized and individualistic go-to-heaven-when-you-die gospel, social gospel advocates focus on the broader purpose of Jesus’ coming to earth: to establish a final Kingdom that will reign in peace through love. Jesus’ kingdom not only stood in contrast to the Roman method of establishing peace through violence, it was a subversive challenge to the imperial injustice of the so-called Pax Romana. Caesar was not Lord. Jesus was Lord. Caesar was not the Prince of Peace. Jesus was the Prince of Peace. Jesus proclaimed the good news that “the Kingdom of God is here!” He started a true living-and-breathing social movement based on peace, love, and mutual cooperation.

(Brief aside: historically, the Social Gospel movement of the Walter Rauschenbusch variety was so obsessed with the social implications of Jesus’ message that they naively embraced unethical ideals such as redistributionism, socialism, and in some cases communism. Instead of seeking truly social and peaceful ways to change the world, they tended to embrace coercive methods to achieve their ends. This is not a tenable position for a libertarian Christian, because the Rauschenbusch gospel is one that is neither social nor personal.)

In some respects we can view the Kingdom of God as “God’s economy.” But this does not mean we will find in the New Testament a prescription for legislative structures by which society ought to be run. Instead, we will find something more valuable than legal remedies or answers to the debate over economic distribution. We will find answers to the core problem of sin through Jesus’ demonstration of the Kingdom of God. God’s economy is about the health of human relationships, not the ideal institutional structures. To misunderstand this is a recipe for dangerously applying Jesus’ Kingdom ethics to an unjust and inadequate institutional framework. As my friend Art Carden has put it, “The important question in social science is not really evaluating the moral quality of the outcome, but evaluating the institutions that produce the outcome” (emphasis mine).

If Christians are to proclaim God’s economy and social order, developing an economic way of thinking is critical to proposing truly progressive social reforms. This is where libertarians—particularly those of the Austrian persuasion—can contribute enormously to the goals of social justice. Yet most progressive Christians have not even considered an economic way of thinking; some are even opposed to it!

Austrian economists will quickly point out that economics is fundamentally about observing human action and explaining how the world works. Developing an economic way of thinking can prevent us from seeking social reforms that produce ersatz outcomes at the expense of human dignity and moral development. Invoking Bible verses about treatment of the poor (such as Proverbs 22:1) to call for higher taxes on the wealthy or raising the minimum wage does not justify theft or magically reverse the laws of supply and demand. For all their talk about social justice, progressives prescribe cures for social ills that are neither social nor just.

Progressives believe the popular myth that the U.S. operates under pure capitalism, and have thus concluded that economic injustice inheres from advocating freedom. They rail against injustice, but they have mistaken the identity of the enemy. Instead of considering that the fundamental idea behind free markets is that they foster cooperation and mutually beneficial trade, they treat them as if they were the enemy of justice. So freedom becomes the scapegoat, and the sword becomes the savior.

Our economic system is unjust not because it is too free, but because its institutional structure benefits the politically well-connected. Progressive ideas like the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and labor laws are all anti-liberty policies that have hurt the people they purport to assist. This is why the fight for social justice is not won by sleeping with the enemy, but by choosing to build for God’s Kingdom. Progressives mistakenly believe the state exists to guard against economic inequality and protect the underdog. Libertarians rightly understand the state for what it is: violent, oppressive, and a destructive force in society.

Progressive and libertarian Christians alike can learn something valuable from each other. Libertarians (especially libertarian Christians) should not see social justice as a dirty word. It is a social aim that Jesus valued and sought, and his followers should do the same. Progressives Christians need to stop looking to the state to fix the social sins of greed, oppression, and racism because it cannot cure those ills.

The hope of the world is not in tweaking the kingdoms of this world. The hope of the world is Jesus, and only through the peaceful advancement of his Kingdom will society change for the better.

Spending Contractions (De-Briefing Progressives)

December 17, 2010, by 1 comment

LaVonne Neff over at Sojourners thinks the government shouldn’t “mess with” the payroll taxes. According to Neff, “Folks, if we want the goods, we’re going to have to pay for them.”

She further opines:

Once taxes are lowered — even if unwisely, and even if the results are devastating — it is almost impossible to raise them again.

I have two questions:

1. Has Neff even met a politician before?!

2. Why are spending contractions never even considered as a plausible question, let alone an alternative?

Tax Plan Confusion (De-Briefing Progressives)

December 14, 2010, by 1 comment

(This launches a new series, “De-briefing Progressives: Exposing their Totalitarian Tendencies“)

Chuck Collins, senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, wrote and article called “Moral Measure of a Tax Plan” today in Sojourner’s God’s Politics blog. It’s a classic example of the assumption that wealth belongs to “society” and that it is the job of our wise overlords to confiscate most of it and distribute it as they see fit.

Here’s his logic:

By extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and instituting a significantly weakened estate tax, more wealth will flow into the hands of the richest one percent — and within that to the richest one-tenth of one percent….

As wealth concentrates, a hyper-organized segment of this wealth-holder class uses its wealth, privilege, and power to change the rules of the economy to further concentrate wealth and privilege. (emphasis mine)

So when does letting people keep their own money count as a “flow” of wealth to the richest in the country? And since when does taxing a dead wealthy person almost half their remaining wealth (which has already been taxed over and over again) considered “immoral”?

The problem is not the wealthy keeping their money. The problem is their legal ability to buy political power and control with it.

To be sure, the state is very involved in a transfer of wealth from the middle class and poor… but that mechanism is not the reduction of progressive taxation, but the mechanism of inflation through the state-sanctioned central bank, the Federal Reserve.

Long Live WikiLeaks!

November 30, 2010, by 1 comment

I don’t follow WikiLeaks very closely, but I do pay attention. My brief thoughts are this: anytime the secrecy of the State’s illegal and unethical activities (and probably all military activities match this description), for the populace to know puts this illegal activity in its place. So WikiLeaks is a good thing. While some of my friends might claim that “some things need to be kept secret,” illegal and unethical activity must be exposed.

Ron Holland wrote on LewRockwell.com:

It is time to open the closed doors of misinformation and lies from institutions ranging from the Social Security Administration, the Federal Reserve, Treasury and Fort Knox to Wall Street and the global banking establishment. From TSA and Homeland Security to wasteful spending and corruption at all levels of government and special interests like big oil, big pharma, the military industrial complex and the agricultural and food cartels which threaten the health of Americans.

Long live freedom! Long live WikiLeaks!

Quote from Marx

November 30, 2010, by 1 comment

Groucho, that is:

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, diagnosing it incorrectly and then applying the wrong remedies.”

Why I’m Electing Not to Vote

November 1, 2010, by 1 comment

The other day I told some members of my wife’s family that (1) I was not voting this year, and (2) that I actually hoped Democrats remain in power. They almost passed out because they see me as fairly political  over the past few years, and I’m very opinionated about liberty and peace, not to mention ethics and Christian morals. So it will likely come as a surprise that I’m not going to vote. The fact of the matter is, I’ve been convinced slowly over the past three years that my voting is inconsequential.

I recently read this article interviewing economist Doug Casey on why he doesn’t vote for ethical reasons. It’s takes about ten minutes to read, but it accurately sums up why I don’t feel voting is “my thing.” Furthermore, from a Christian perspective, issues of justice and peace ought to be at the forefront of our hearts, minds, and actions. But beyond the most local of levels, voting is capitulation to and participation in a wholly corrupt system. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

I regret voting for John McCain because he really didn’t represent me, nor was he a candidate that much different from Barack Obama. I reluctantly voted for him (in part due to my fascination with Sarah Palin… which now has passed), though in retrospect I wish I hadn’t because at least my conscience would be clear. But both were and are big-government progressives who are more about bigger government than they were about freedom.

I am proud to have the opportunity to vote. I am proud of America. I believe America is great, not because of the government but in spite of it. Americans love freedom, they work hard, and the make things. But voting in and of itself is only one manifestation of how we can affect change. I simply don’t believe it is as valuable as other methods.  It’s not wrong to vote; it’s just not for me.

The entrepreneur that creates and accumulates wealth is a far greater force for progress than his votes could accomplish. The business that creates jobs and uses the excess to give more (not “give back” which makes no sense) to the community by way of charity does more than the votes of its CEOs would. The family that lives frugally and lives within its means does more for the economy than a politician does. And the Church members who dedicate all of their energies away from politics and instead toward serving others do more to advance the gospel than their collective vote. The toil of voting seems much less rewarding than wisely preserving and stewarding the resources we have been blessed with.

But on the other hand, I am voting. I am voting against both candidates. In abstinence I am choosing to endorse neither party nor either’s direction for America. In many ways I’m doing what Church members who vote “no” for a pastoral candidate are doing.  I’m dealing with three options (yes, there are more than two options!). Another analogy might be the debate about which is the best “safe sex” method (for non-married people). Abstinence is the forgotten “candidate.”

As a Christian I believe strongly that the gospel is “social.” That is, salvation is not merely personal but communal, and we are called to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8). It’s a very important feature of Christianity. So if I vote it ought to be out of a sense of purpose, not a “hope it works” kind of way. So my choice not to vote isn’t glib or throwing my hands in the air in despair or frustration. My vote to not vote is a strong stance against warfare and against welfare, and against the parties that endorse either or both. It is a refusal to participate in a culture of corruption.

The second point—while bizarre on the one hand—should make the most sense to any of us on the pro-liberty side of politics. The fact of the matter is that most people don’t think through the ramifications of who they approve of being in power. They don’t think how deficits, high taxes for the wealthy, and “free health care” really affect their lives. My take is: they need to. And if that means for eight years Obama and the Democrats get everything they want, the laundry will stink at the end and liberty will be embraced. Besides, Republicans won’t change much in Washington anyway, since they have grown government more than Clinton and Carter (two Democrats rather despised by conservative). So the country needs to know what it is getting itself into, and this slow trickle into fascism doesn’t alarm anybody. It needs to. So I say to the so-called Progressives, “have at it!”

Liberty will win in the end. Voting isn’t the only way that happens. If you question me in person with various arguments, I probably won’t always have a rock solid rebuttal. But I feel no less convinced that voting isn’t the only way to make change happen. A phrase Obama used in his own campaign in 2008 was “we are the people we’ve been waiting for.” Unfortunately, voting is an act that negates such an attitude toward social change.