This is part 2 of a series of justice and Christianity.
In the last article I talked about a protest movement called "the 99 percent" that's finds its ground zero in the geographical epicentre of a corrupt, greedy, capitalist system: Wall Street. The name refers to the 99% of people who share a proportionately smaller amount of wealth than the top 1%. So, being the vast majority of the human populace, there are obviously quite a large number of Christians among them.
And what exactly are they doing about it? Well, it could be anything really.
The ideas of ethics, inalienable rights, fairness, justice and responsibilities owe so much to the foundations of Christian thought. It's difficult to argue for human rights without grounding them in something outside ourselves. So it's no surprise then that Christians are often amongst the forefront of social justice.
In fact, Christians have been involved in social justice in at least two significant movements within the past century. One of those saw the rise of liberation theology in Latin America through the middle of the 20th century. It arose mainly as a response to the growing injustices against the poor in that region, arguably similar to the movement we're seeing today.
Liberation theology, although frowned upon by the Vatican, was mainly a Roman Catholic response. The 99%, on the other hand, seeks to involve anyone earning less than the top 1% of the world's earners. But if the occupy Toronto movement is indicative of the movement at large, it's far less monolithic than liberation theology. The protests were not simply against the growing economic hardships of the middle and lower class, but against wars, the prohibition of drugs, gay marriage, and even bad grammar. One sign read, "Emancipation proclation." I think he meant "proclamation." With no clear message it's difficult to see whether there's really a message at all.
If I could see one thing, however, something that is both implicit and occasionally explicit, is the growing marxist interpretations of the societal problems, and that has definite similarities to the liberation theology movement in Latin America. For them, cooperation, not competition, is the only way to bridge the gap between the rich and poor, to promote justice and dignity for the individual, and opportunity and fairness for all.
To be perfectly fair, nowhere does Jesus, or anyone else in the Bible for that matter, give us a blueprint for political and economic systems. Neither marxism nor free-market capitalism bears God's proverbial stamp of approval. But that's not to say there haven't been forms of either one that have been influenced, at least in some part, by Christian thought. Christian socialist parties continue to exert influence throughout the world as well as more right-of-centre parties. Churches in America have congregations where both Republicans and Democrats in good conscience sit next to each other in the pew, sharing the same cup and loaf in the supper.
Marxism will not be the saviour to those whose misfortune has been blamed by greedy capitalism. Nor is capitalism the beacon of freedom for those under the tyrannical rule of a communist government. But whatever sort of society you find yourself, good theology forces you to think seriously about how you relate to your neighbour and how you can positively influence the world around you. People like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., William Wilberforce, and Abraham Kuyper probably all had differing ideas on political and economic systems. But each of them, driven by their theology, brought about significant change.
More on this later...
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Justice and the 99 percent - Part 1 - Introduction
I'm only an observer of the protest movement called "the 99 percent" that's now beginning to make headlines in mainstream news. In fact, I've only been introduced to it within the last couple weeks. Part of what I see is a people deeply concerned about the increasing difficulties of surviving in tough economic times. The other part is anger and resentment towards the privileged. So how ought Christians think about social justice, wealth, and government? Christians have experienced hard times like this before, so what wisdom have they to pass on? Part 1 - An Introduction...
Thanks to various media outlets covering the riots on Wall Street people have been introduced to a movement that has, apparently, been around for over a decade. They call themselves the 99 percent, a homage to 99% of people who share a proportionately smaller share of national (and indeed international) wealth than the top 1%.
During the economic boom through the late 90s and before 2007 a movement of people disenfranchised with with the rich/poor divide was barely noticeable. But as the recession hit those of us who used to live comfortably with secure jobs suddenly found it hard to pay bills. The United States in particular started witnessing unseen numbers of home foreclosures, and for many more going to the hospital was strictly for emergencies only. After nearly four years of hardly any recovery, the top 1% continue to earn in greater numbers.
It seems there were cracks in the system. Now it's left in a state of woeful disrepair. A movement like this shouldn't be surprising.
Economies rise and fall. There are times of growth, and times of recession. But this recession has shown something remarkably different, and not just in its size and scale. In the past, as recessions hit and demand for products and services diminish, a proportionate amount of the workforce would be laid off. As demand began to return, so would the workforce. In this case, however, increased demand hasn't been bringing back the workforce. Instead, the workload has increased for those who are still lucky enough to have a job. For a variety of reasons employers aren't bringing back the workforce.
And this is where movements like this begin to get angry. Because more work is being accomplished with less labour (typically through what's called company restructuring) this leads to much higher profit margins. Business are sitting on much more money than they have in the past and are either too fearful to spend it or they spread it amongst their own top earners. Hence the big bonuses and pay-raises of the 1%. Apparently "trickle-down" economics just isn't working like it's supposed to.
If the top 1% are taking more for themselves and not spreading it around this leaves a much smaller share of the overall monetary fund for the other 99%. Things are getting tight and now they're beginning to protest. The demands are simple and straightforward. Decent wages, accessible healthcare, and affordable food and shelter. Only they're taking straight aim at what they call the corporate takeover of American democracy.
So where do Christians stand in the crisis? And what does Christianity say about social justice in a suffering system? Check back for part 2...
Thanks to various media outlets covering the riots on Wall Street people have been introduced to a movement that has, apparently, been around for over a decade. They call themselves the 99 percent, a homage to 99% of people who share a proportionately smaller share of national (and indeed international) wealth than the top 1%.
During the economic boom through the late 90s and before 2007 a movement of people disenfranchised with with the rich/poor divide was barely noticeable. But as the recession hit those of us who used to live comfortably with secure jobs suddenly found it hard to pay bills. The United States in particular started witnessing unseen numbers of home foreclosures, and for many more going to the hospital was strictly for emergencies only. After nearly four years of hardly any recovery, the top 1% continue to earn in greater numbers.
It seems there were cracks in the system. Now it's left in a state of woeful disrepair. A movement like this shouldn't be surprising.
Economies rise and fall. There are times of growth, and times of recession. But this recession has shown something remarkably different, and not just in its size and scale. In the past, as recessions hit and demand for products and services diminish, a proportionate amount of the workforce would be laid off. As demand began to return, so would the workforce. In this case, however, increased demand hasn't been bringing back the workforce. Instead, the workload has increased for those who are still lucky enough to have a job. For a variety of reasons employers aren't bringing back the workforce.
And this is where movements like this begin to get angry. Because more work is being accomplished with less labour (typically through what's called company restructuring) this leads to much higher profit margins. Business are sitting on much more money than they have in the past and are either too fearful to spend it or they spread it amongst their own top earners. Hence the big bonuses and pay-raises of the 1%. Apparently "trickle-down" economics just isn't working like it's supposed to.
If the top 1% are taking more for themselves and not spreading it around this leaves a much smaller share of the overall monetary fund for the other 99%. Things are getting tight and now they're beginning to protest. The demands are simple and straightforward. Decent wages, accessible healthcare, and affordable food and shelter. Only they're taking straight aim at what they call the corporate takeover of American democracy.
So where do Christians stand in the crisis? And what does Christianity say about social justice in a suffering system? Check back for part 2...
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
A Defense of the Rational - Part 2 - Dealing with Doubt
This is part 2 of a series of reflections on disciplines in the sciences and humanities in relation to Christian faith and doubt.
In the last post I argued that both special and general revelation must, by definition, be mutually true. So when we see an apparent contradiction between the two that brings up questions of whether or not our understanding of the Bible is true or our interpretation of the scientific findings are misinterpreted. Questioning our preconceived Biblical convictions can be a frightening thing. It's usually easier to just dismiss the findings, but the questions won't go away if you just ignore them. In other words, we begin to doubt.
Nobody comes to the faith for purely intellectual reasons. While arguments, logic, and evidence can certainly aid in bringing one closer to the faith, there are many other emotional and sociological influences that can make someone accept or refuse. At the end of the day, it is God who brings about the faith in someone. The point is that there are more than simply "logical" reasons for one to deny the faith, or at the very least, doubt.
But what is doubt? It's is one of those loaded words in the Christian faith that, I will start by saying, may not be what you might think. Essentially doubt is having an alternative set of beliefs. The question is whether what you believe or the alternative "doubting" is more credible.
One simple example is miracles. Chances are you've never seen them, and by definition, as an act of God, you just can't repeat them or study them. They're anomalies to the typical patterns of nature. So when the Bible records accounts of the miraculous a "rational" person would obviously doubt it.
It was once argued that because miracles don't happen, they therefore can't happen. One out of every one dead person has remained dead, therefore resurrection is impossible. Actually, this is circular logic, and one does not necessarily follow the other. But more importantly, the assumption that miracles can't happen stems not from empirical study but from philosophical presuppositions. Namely, that God does not exist. If God exists, it's perfectly plausible miracles could happen. It's well within reason that if God can create the entire world, there's nothing to stop Him from doing anything else miraculous.
So, as Christians we accept God as being the creator and sustainer of the universe and the Bible to be his True and inspired word. We know that our sins are forgiven on the basis of Jesus' substitutionary atonement on the cross, and that we are granted new life because He also defeated the curse of death through His resurrection. If we begin to doubt his resurrection, for whatever reason, then we are presented with two sets of propositions.
One is that Jesus really did die and rise again. The other is that he did not. Both of them carry the weight of enormous implications, and the question is which one is more credible. Just as doubts don't all necessarily stem from intellectual obstacles, they won't simply go away through rational argument. But they do need to be examined for what they are. It may be short and simple, it may be a very long process, and you may find that your doubts ended up being more truthful than your original beliefs. By the time you come out at the end you're more than likely going to find your faith has been strengthened.
Doubts will never disappear. As one goes away, another will come. But doubt, it must be said, is not the same as unbelief. Our faith may falter greatly at times. Indeed, it is never perfect. But it is not our fervour that saves, it is the object of our faith. We are not saved because of faith but through faith. Though we continue to doubt, it is Christ who accomplishes his good work until the end.
In the last post I argued that both special and general revelation must, by definition, be mutually true. So when we see an apparent contradiction between the two that brings up questions of whether or not our understanding of the Bible is true or our interpretation of the scientific findings are misinterpreted. Questioning our preconceived Biblical convictions can be a frightening thing. It's usually easier to just dismiss the findings, but the questions won't go away if you just ignore them. In other words, we begin to doubt.
Nobody comes to the faith for purely intellectual reasons. While arguments, logic, and evidence can certainly aid in bringing one closer to the faith, there are many other emotional and sociological influences that can make someone accept or refuse. At the end of the day, it is God who brings about the faith in someone. The point is that there are more than simply "logical" reasons for one to deny the faith, or at the very least, doubt.
But what is doubt? It's is one of those loaded words in the Christian faith that, I will start by saying, may not be what you might think. Essentially doubt is having an alternative set of beliefs. The question is whether what you believe or the alternative "doubting" is more credible.
One simple example is miracles. Chances are you've never seen them, and by definition, as an act of God, you just can't repeat them or study them. They're anomalies to the typical patterns of nature. So when the Bible records accounts of the miraculous a "rational" person would obviously doubt it.
It was once argued that because miracles don't happen, they therefore can't happen. One out of every one dead person has remained dead, therefore resurrection is impossible. Actually, this is circular logic, and one does not necessarily follow the other. But more importantly, the assumption that miracles can't happen stems not from empirical study but from philosophical presuppositions. Namely, that God does not exist. If God exists, it's perfectly plausible miracles could happen. It's well within reason that if God can create the entire world, there's nothing to stop Him from doing anything else miraculous.
So, as Christians we accept God as being the creator and sustainer of the universe and the Bible to be his True and inspired word. We know that our sins are forgiven on the basis of Jesus' substitutionary atonement on the cross, and that we are granted new life because He also defeated the curse of death through His resurrection. If we begin to doubt his resurrection, for whatever reason, then we are presented with two sets of propositions.
One is that Jesus really did die and rise again. The other is that he did not. Both of them carry the weight of enormous implications, and the question is which one is more credible. Just as doubts don't all necessarily stem from intellectual obstacles, they won't simply go away through rational argument. But they do need to be examined for what they are. It may be short and simple, it may be a very long process, and you may find that your doubts ended up being more truthful than your original beliefs. By the time you come out at the end you're more than likely going to find your faith has been strengthened.
Doubts will never disappear. As one goes away, another will come. But doubt, it must be said, is not the same as unbelief. Our faith may falter greatly at times. Indeed, it is never perfect. But it is not our fervour that saves, it is the object of our faith. We are not saved because of faith but through faith. Though we continue to doubt, it is Christ who accomplishes his good work until the end.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
A Defense of the Rational - Part 1
This is part 1 of a series of reflections on disciplines in the sciences and humanities in relation to Christian faith and doubt.
If you know me well you know that I love reading about theology, philosophy, science, and apologetics. Aside from the mere fascination I have with reading and learning it's helped to solidify and strengthen my faith in many things which I've already believed. So I was struck when I heard a comment last month to be wary of such things.
I'm not entirely certain what precipitated the concern in this particular situation, but it did lead me to ponder the possible pitfalls of reading such "rational" material. In my own defence, having an inquisitive and often skeptical mind drives me into the study of matters that I find deeply important, as it would for anybody. I don't read for the sake of gaining knowledge as an end in itself. Nor do I read without discernment in both the Christian and non-Christian writings. And as much as I enjoy the intellectual aspect of Christian belief, it's impossible to separate Christianity into its so-called rational and existential sides. They're both equally important and it would be a false dichotomy to try to drive a wedge between the two. They coexist as part of the whole of reality. Christianity, as it was once said, is both intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. I would add that one cannot be true without the other.
As Christians we believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. That is, we believe it to be Truth, or what the reformers called "special revelation." In the different disciplines in the sciences and humanities, you find the study of creation, or what the reformers called "general revelation." Through study we come to know about the truth of the world around us. In the Christian understanding of reality it would make absolutely no sense to pit one against the other. General revelation and special revelation, if properly understood, must be in mutual agreement with each other.
Therefore if you find something in the Bible that seems to contradict scientific findings you find yourself in a dilemma. Is the Bible false? Or is your interpretation of the Bible mistaken? Is the scientific findings false? Or is your interpretation of the scientific findings mistaken? If we believe both special and general revelation to be mutually true we are inevitably going to have to wrestle with these questions at some point. I imagine this is where the concern may have come from.
Questions like these aren't limited to the natural sciences but apply equally to questions of ethics and morality. For example, Christians believe in marriage as being between a man and a woman. We believe it to be part of God's original order of creation and therefore it serves a specific purpose both in relation to God and in relation to each other in society. To allow that to fall apart is not only detrimental in our relationship to God (i.e. disobedience) but to society as a whole (i.e. causing instability).
Now suppose a sociological study is undertaken that looks at the effects of stability on societies where there are essentially no marriages as Christians understand it. It might be measured in terms of crime statistics, economy, etc. If the study were to conclude that there is essentially no difference whatsoever compared to societies with strong marriages what are we to say? Even though Christians feel morally obligated to keep to a Biblical view of marriage, we would rightfully say that it's important for the rest of society at large regardless of competing religious views. It's fairly likely we would either doubt the findings or simply dismiss it altogether.
But what if the study was done in honesty? What if there were no underlying agendas in mind and those were simply "the facts." The truth of Christianity does not depend on the effectiveness of strong marriages on the welfare of society, but it would beg the question about the purpose of marriage outside of Christian circles.
It's merely hypothetical of course. No such study has ever existed that has made that conclusion. But it demonstrates how we might come to question our Biblical interpretations or our understanding of marriage. I, for one, am one of those people who say, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. But to simply be dismissive of studies that appear to contradict my understanding of Biblical truth would be, in itself, logically inconsistent.
This goes back to the relation between special and general revelation. General revelation isn't going to be able to tell us about who God is, but it can certainly give us enough to know He's there, He's personal, and that there is some kind of moral code to be followed. It's implicit both in nature and our inescapable experiences. Special revelation, on the other hand, reveals to us what General revelation cannot. It speaks of who God is, his relationship to us, and what he has done. In either case, what is revealed in one is only going to confirm what is revealed in the other. They cannot contradict one another.
Indeed, both special and general revelation are uniquely intertwined. Every other religion has its own moral codes and its own dogmas. But those moral codes and dogmas (in varying degrees) are distinct from science and history. That is, they don't depend on any kind of historical or physical realities. They cannot be proven. This is why you see the prevalence of the privatization of religion (the belief that they are merely personal preferences and have little bearing on anyone or anything else). In Christianity its truth depends on historical and physical realities.
That is to say Christianity cannot be reduced to a set of moral standards and customs to adhere to. It is not some wisdom passed on through the pens of certain men in the past but is about God being directly involved in our realities. Creation demonstrates the handiwork of God, and the truth of Christianity depends on the veracity of real historical events. Special revelation is the unfolding drama of what God has done in what we call general revelation.
Therefore, if the Bible truly is the word of God, everything that we find in the world around us, rightly understood, will necessarily bear witness to it. So then, what does the evidence suggest? That God is real, and that Christ has risen! The more I discover, the more my faith is strengthened.
Coming next time
Part 2 - What about doubts?
...
If you know me well you know that I love reading about theology, philosophy, science, and apologetics. Aside from the mere fascination I have with reading and learning it's helped to solidify and strengthen my faith in many things which I've already believed. So I was struck when I heard a comment last month to be wary of such things.
I'm not entirely certain what precipitated the concern in this particular situation, but it did lead me to ponder the possible pitfalls of reading such "rational" material. In my own defence, having an inquisitive and often skeptical mind drives me into the study of matters that I find deeply important, as it would for anybody. I don't read for the sake of gaining knowledge as an end in itself. Nor do I read without discernment in both the Christian and non-Christian writings. And as much as I enjoy the intellectual aspect of Christian belief, it's impossible to separate Christianity into its so-called rational and existential sides. They're both equally important and it would be a false dichotomy to try to drive a wedge between the two. They coexist as part of the whole of reality. Christianity, as it was once said, is both intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. I would add that one cannot be true without the other.
As Christians we believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. That is, we believe it to be Truth, or what the reformers called "special revelation." In the different disciplines in the sciences and humanities, you find the study of creation, or what the reformers called "general revelation." Through study we come to know about the truth of the world around us. In the Christian understanding of reality it would make absolutely no sense to pit one against the other. General revelation and special revelation, if properly understood, must be in mutual agreement with each other.
Therefore if you find something in the Bible that seems to contradict scientific findings you find yourself in a dilemma. Is the Bible false? Or is your interpretation of the Bible mistaken? Is the scientific findings false? Or is your interpretation of the scientific findings mistaken? If we believe both special and general revelation to be mutually true we are inevitably going to have to wrestle with these questions at some point. I imagine this is where the concern may have come from.
Questions like these aren't limited to the natural sciences but apply equally to questions of ethics and morality. For example, Christians believe in marriage as being between a man and a woman. We believe it to be part of God's original order of creation and therefore it serves a specific purpose both in relation to God and in relation to each other in society. To allow that to fall apart is not only detrimental in our relationship to God (i.e. disobedience) but to society as a whole (i.e. causing instability).
Now suppose a sociological study is undertaken that looks at the effects of stability on societies where there are essentially no marriages as Christians understand it. It might be measured in terms of crime statistics, economy, etc. If the study were to conclude that there is essentially no difference whatsoever compared to societies with strong marriages what are we to say? Even though Christians feel morally obligated to keep to a Biblical view of marriage, we would rightfully say that it's important for the rest of society at large regardless of competing religious views. It's fairly likely we would either doubt the findings or simply dismiss it altogether.
But what if the study was done in honesty? What if there were no underlying agendas in mind and those were simply "the facts." The truth of Christianity does not depend on the effectiveness of strong marriages on the welfare of society, but it would beg the question about the purpose of marriage outside of Christian circles.
It's merely hypothetical of course. No such study has ever existed that has made that conclusion. But it demonstrates how we might come to question our Biblical interpretations or our understanding of marriage. I, for one, am one of those people who say, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. But to simply be dismissive of studies that appear to contradict my understanding of Biblical truth would be, in itself, logically inconsistent.
This goes back to the relation between special and general revelation. General revelation isn't going to be able to tell us about who God is, but it can certainly give us enough to know He's there, He's personal, and that there is some kind of moral code to be followed. It's implicit both in nature and our inescapable experiences. Special revelation, on the other hand, reveals to us what General revelation cannot. It speaks of who God is, his relationship to us, and what he has done. In either case, what is revealed in one is only going to confirm what is revealed in the other. They cannot contradict one another.
Indeed, both special and general revelation are uniquely intertwined. Every other religion has its own moral codes and its own dogmas. But those moral codes and dogmas (in varying degrees) are distinct from science and history. That is, they don't depend on any kind of historical or physical realities. They cannot be proven. This is why you see the prevalence of the privatization of religion (the belief that they are merely personal preferences and have little bearing on anyone or anything else). In Christianity its truth depends on historical and physical realities.
That is to say Christianity cannot be reduced to a set of moral standards and customs to adhere to. It is not some wisdom passed on through the pens of certain men in the past but is about God being directly involved in our realities. Creation demonstrates the handiwork of God, and the truth of Christianity depends on the veracity of real historical events. Special revelation is the unfolding drama of what God has done in what we call general revelation.
Therefore, if the Bible truly is the word of God, everything that we find in the world around us, rightly understood, will necessarily bear witness to it. So then, what does the evidence suggest? That God is real, and that Christ has risen! The more I discover, the more my faith is strengthened.
Coming next time
Part 2 - What about doubts?
...
Monday, October 03, 2011
Back from break...
Look! No posts for an entire month. That's ok, this blog is still alive. This past September I enjoyed my first week long vacation since my honeymoon four years ago. It was a well timed and much needed break. In the past month I was able to do a lot of interesting reading, although not as much as I had hoped. But also, beginning yesterday, the church I attend began a new Sunday evening DVD series based on Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God." There's a great many things to reflect on which I hope to distill in this blog for your reading pleasure. In the mean time, I'm back, and keep an eye out for some posts coming in the new future. Have a nice day, God bless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)