2007 October archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Archive for October, 2007

Valuation

Published by cchrisr October 31, 2007 in Philosophy. 5 Comments

The problem with values is that they are dependent upon specific beliefs. For instance, the concept of valuating concepts depends upon the belief that concepts can be evaluated and “judged” according to some set of principles. There is also the dependency of those particular principles. Theoretically, if the required beliefs are removed, the values based on them should fall, much like the removal of a foundation.

This is one of the premises behind Nietzsche’s sustained attack on Christianity. According to John Wilcox’s seminal work on metaethical analysis of Nietzsche, Truth and Value in Nietzsche, this attack centers around five beliefs: the existence of God, the existence of another world, free will, a moral order to the world, and a purely moral motivation. While each of these would be worth exploration, for now we will focus on one in two parts: freedom and the will.

Freedom
Nietzsche is dead-set against any kind of real “freedom” in actions. In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche writes that the new doctrine of the “immoralists” is that “no one gives man his qualities–neither God, nor society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor he himself” (VI, 8). The last part is important here: one does not even give oneself one’s qualities. In other words, one is unable to determine who/what/how one is. In Human, All-Too-Human, Nietzsche iterates the same concept of Laplace: “In looking at a waterfall we imagine that there is freedom of will and fancy in the countless turnings, twistings, and breakings of the waves; but everything is compulsory, every movement can be mathematically calculated. So it is also with human actions…” (106). There is no freedom in Nietzsche primarily because the will is not a faculty of one’s actions. In other words, one does not will. Instead, one’s will compels one to action; there is no real choice because it had been decided before a choice was even possible.

Der Wille
Nietzsche conceives of the will differently than most Westerners have in the past two hundred years. As I mentioned just above, the will is not an agent of action for Nietzsche. The ability to choose one’s fancy (e.g. caesar vs ranch dressing) is not really a matter of the will.

This misunderstanding began back before Plato and Socrates as thinkers began to associate the will as the cause of an action. This transformed into the idea that the consciousness was the actual cause. Finally, in Descartes, we have the ultimate error: the ego (the self) as the cause of an action. Nietzsche writes in Twilight, “Men were considered ‘free’ so that they might be judged and punished–so that they might become guilty: consequently, every act had to be considered as willed, and the origin of every act had to be considered as lying within the consciousness (and thus the most fundamental counterfeit in psychologicis was made the principle of psychology itself).” In other words, for the values of “good and evil” in the bad conscience of Christianity to work, it required man to be responsible for his actions, which further required the will as an agent of the self.

Values
In order to understand what Nietzsche means by his title Beyond Good and Evil as well as his designation as an “immoralist,” one must understand how Nietzsche conceives of the will and freedom. Nietzsche is not advocating a view “beyond morals” at all, but rather a view in which guilt is redeemed as a result of the will. Nietzsche’s concept of redemption can be seen in both Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Antichrist: “To redeem what is past in man and to re-create all ‘it was’ until the will says, ‘Thus I willed it! Thus I shall will it!’” Redemption in this perspective of Nietzsche I am presenting (there are other ones that may all be contradictory) is the value of affirmation. The final stage of man is not the lion who roars “No!” to laws but rather the child who innocently speaks “Yes!” to new values. This is why Nietzsche respects the Jewish priests and Paul even though they become the epitome of ressentiment: they created values.

Philosophy, Theology, And The Church

Published by Bryan October 30, 2007 in Religion, Emerging Church and Philosophy. 14 Comments

As a philosophy student, I often have conversations with friends regarding the place of philosophy in the Church. This week the topic has been on my mind once again after one of my philosophy professors commented in class about the lack of theologians doing philosophy on the academic level today. I was able to bring up the counter example of John Milbank right away, and after some thought Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolferstroff. There are a few others but not many.

Christian today don’t care about philosophy. I hate to say it but it’s true. Have you heard of these three people I mentioned? Have you read anything by them? I’m studying philosophy and although I know a bit about two of them (I know nothing about one of them besides the name), have read a book about Milbank’s Radical Orthodox movement, and listened to an interview with him, I myself don’t know much at all about the current “Christian philosophical scene.”

Reactionary Theology
The only place for philosophy among most evangelicals is when it is proved wrong by Christian apologists. We have more then enough of these in the church; those people who are not willing to give a sympathetic reading to any philosopher, but instead read what other Christians have written about them, and then go on the offensive against them. There have been some good Christian apologists who understand the philosophical systems out there and can interact with them, but walk into a Christian bookstore and the books your likely to see are usually surface treatments of philosophy that take a few potshots at a particular philosopher and then assumes nothing by them (or their followers) could ever be said back in response.

I’m not sure if this is a result of the lack of interest of philosophy in the church, or if the lack of interest in philosophy in the church has caused it’s superficial treatment among Christian academia. One thing for sure however is that if you mention philosophy in many churches you get weird stares.

I don’t bother trying to discuss philosophy with people in my church anymore, it seemed like a loosing battle. When I tell them that one of my majors is philosophy I often hear; “Why would you ever take that?” which in and of itself is not an usual comment as most people in and outside the church don’t understand the allure of a degree that will not directly lead to employment, but when it’s said in the church there is the hint of disgust with the whole discipline.

A similar disgust exists with theology. Although in this case it is less pronounced it is still noticeably there. It manifests itself in comments such as; “Well I don’t care what who and who said, I just know what my bible says.” or “You can believe whatever you want, but I’ll follow the bible on this…” The idea that a well thought out, logical, position on a biblical doctrine doesn’t matter. Somehow if one reads theologians and thinks through biblical doctrines they will cease to take the scriptures seriously and be lead astray by men. Christians should attempt to understand scripture in a vacuum.

I don’t want to get into all the things that is wrong with this view (as if someone can interpret anything in a vacuum) but to point out that this fear of both philosophy and theology is founded on the fact that the church has come to believe that it will lead away from the truth of scripture and to the lies of man. There is a general sense the all “academic” disciplines (theology, philosophy, history, science…etc.) will lead a person away from the truth.

An Anti-Intellectual Environment
This view has lead to the shattering of the church along the academic line. Many who are within these disciplines feel (and likely are) removed from the rest of their church. I’m speaking of philosophy and theology here since they are my areas of interest, but those in the universities who are studying sciences face a similar fate. The Christian who studies biology is continually questioned as to their “orthodoxy” on creation/evolution and is always eyed with suspicion that their science may replace their bible. There is of course reason for the church to be cautious about academia, but it’s gone past caution into full bore paranoia in many cases. Christians should be leaders in all these fields, but instead the church more often then not shows through its attitude that it wants a separation from them.

Because of my studies I have spent a lot of time questioning the Christian faith. Since I began to study theology on my own my theology has been shifting away from the typical baptist theology I began in and toward a more Reformed/Anglican/Emerging Church understanding (when I understand exactly what that means I’ll write about it), and my philosophy classes at University have often caused me to question common Christian answers to really complex problems.

As I’m struggling with philosophical and theological questions I should go to my church and ask for advice, but rarely do I do that anymore. When I do the questions are often dismissed, brushed over, or at worst cause a heated exchange as they don’t understand how I could even be questioning such a thing. This does not hold true for everyone in my church, there are some I can discuss theology with, but I keep the circle of people that I do discuss with small and often shy away from discussing the underlying questions that I struggle with. Sometimes this is to protect myself (if my theology is moving away from what my church teaches) and sometimes this is to protect others (I don’t think they have ever considered this before and have no idea what this kind of question will do to their faith). This all however leads to a real rupture in community. The church is the place where theology should be done, where philosophy should be discussed, and where questions from all disciplines should be looked at. The anti-intellectual environment in many evangelical churches has stopped this.

The Intellectual Divide
I’m not sure how this rupture within the church can be fixed. It’s a question I have spent a lot of time thinking on over the past few years because it’s a personal and practical question. If I feel out of place in the local church, that the questions I am asking are not ones that the local church wants to hear or wants to try to find answers for, will I ever be at home in that church? If the local church wants a “no creed but Christ” attitude, and is willing to look with suspicion on those who embrace academic disciplines that may lead to looking at the world in different ways, can there ever be true community?

There is an intellectual divide in evangelical churches. I know I am not alone in feeling it, others I attend University with feel it as well. After years of thinking on the topic I’m still not sure how to go about trying to fix it. At least the Emerging Church is willing to ask questions and seek answers, even if some in the movement get the wrong ones. If there is one thing evangelicals can learn from the Emerging Church, it’s the importance of asking questions and being able to have open discussions on nearly every subject without passing judgment while the conversation is still ongoing.

Emerging Impulses: Kingdom Focus

Published by Jasen Tracy October 29, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 15 Comments

One thing that characterizes many in the Emerging Church is the amount of attention they pay to the kingdom of God. Note that the kingdom of God (the term used in Mark and Luke) and the kingdom of heaven (the term used in Matthew) refer to the same thing. This kingdom focus seems appropriate in the light of Matthew 6:33: “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”

Definition
According to Dallas Willard, the Lord’s Prayer provides a short definition of the Kingdom of God. “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” means that the Kingdom of God is where God’s will is done. God’s kingdom is in full force in heaven, but on earth, it is permitted to be partially absent.

The main teaching of Jesus was the kingdom of God. He proclaimed the kingdom to have come (Luke 11:20). This kingdom has been entered into by people (Col 1:13), and is in the midst of human life (Luke 17:21). It is then, a present reality we can participate in, and not just a future reality. Although the kingdom is here, there is also the truth that it is not yet. That is, the kingdom will be fulfilled completely at the second coming of Christ.

In the Emerging Church
There is a high emphasis on the kingdom of God in the Emerging Church. Some see this emphasis as being the single most agreed upon position in the notoriously diverse Emerging Church.

Jesus’ message of the kingdom, is held to not only to be the good news of personal salvation and a promised future in heaven, but also a call to be agents for God’s kingdom here and now. This involves not only the task of making disciples, but also working for peace, justice, and mercy in the world today. It is living for the values of God’s kingdom rather than for any of man’s values.

In practice, this kingdom focus involves a great deal of what has commonly been called social work. This is the fulfillment of the command to love our neighbors. Besides the idea of the kingdom of God, motivation for these practices is commonly drawn for the Old Testaments prophets. For example, take Isaiah 58:6-7:

Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?

Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

Criticism
Criticism of the Emerging Church’s focus on the Kingdom of God (from American Evangelicals) appears to come from two main areas. The first, are those who worry that the focus on the kingdom of God will produce a social gospel that minimizes or ignores the idea of individual salvation. The second set of objections come from certain quarters of strict dispensational premillennialism.

The first objection is a valid concern. As Tim Keller notes, churches have a hard time integrating both the individual (evangelism) and corporate (working for justice and peace) practices, although there is no particular reason why this should be. It probably exists somewhere, but I can say that I have not seen the neglect for individual salvation in the Emerging Church that so worries people. The idea that it is hard to hold to both the individual and corporate aspects is baffling to some in the Emerging Church, who wonder how that can be since the motivation to do both come from the same place, love of God and love of neighbor.

The concerns of some dispensational premillennialists are that the Emerging church’s focus on the kingdom of God amounts to postmillennialism, and that it leads to an errant hope that society on earth can improve. The optimism for social change (or at least the potential) in the Emerging Church does resemble that of postmillennialism. However, there is a wide diversity of views on the millennium in the Emerging Church, the main position is probably that of preferring not to take a position on the issue (other than to affirm that Christ will return).

Community Marriage Policies: Can They Lower the Divorce Rate?

Published by Thainamu October 26, 2007 in General. 36 Comments

Churches around the country have become alarmed at the number of people from their congregations who have divorced—and they’ve decided to do something about it (besides whining). City-wide and county-wide churches are banding together to develop Community Marriage policies. In short, this means that clergy from participating churches refuse to perform “quickie” weddings and will not marry any couple until they have participated in a minimum amount of premarital counseling. The premarital counseling includes several months of marriage preparation classes, the use of testing instruments to learn more about each other, study of scripture, and meeting with a mentor couple.

Marriage Savers
Many Community Marriage Policies are patterned after those designed by an organization called Marriage Savers. This group began in 1996 and now boasts over 200 cities/counties which have made community marriage policies. The goal of the organization is to “prepare, strengthen, and restore” marriages. Their goals are achieved via two main emphases: encouraging communities to developing marriage policies and training mentor couples who can provide an example of a good marriage as well as real-life help in solving marriage difficulties. The organization believes that divorce can be avoided with community support. Their website includes many helpful resources, both personal and community-based. The founders also do not shy away from trying to sway public policy. They have posted articles calling for a change in the universal no-fault divorce laws and a challenge to presidential candidates to reduce welfare rolls.

An Example from Oregon
An organization called Every Marriage Matters was founded in June 2001 when over half of the clergy from Clackamas County in Oregon signed the Clackamas County Marriage Policy. They claim impressive results in just a short time, showing that a community working together can actually make a difference:

An increase in the health of marriage could be measured indirectly by a reduction in the divorce reate. The Clackamas County divorce rate fell by 15% during the first 4 years. As a matter of reference, over this same period, the US divorce rate dropped 5%.

It’s Just Between You and Me and Everyone
If it takes a village to raise a child, it also takes a village to keep a marriage together. It is faulty thinking that a marriage is just between two people or that a divorce is, either. I applaud those who see the bigger picture and are aware of how much divorce hurts individuals, churches, and even whole communities. I support those churches and communities who act on the premise that marriages benefit from the involvement of church and friends who provide good examples, good advice and good practical help in dealing with inevitable pressures and difficulties.

The Minimum Wage II: Social Analysis

Published by Colin October 25, 2007 in General and Politics. 30 Comments

Yesterday, the minimum wage was looked at for its pure economics, and the following key points were made:

wages are just like any price, and that amount is determined by the same mechanisms that determine other prices
wages are not increased or decreased by employers being nice or mean
in general, a price on wages is reached by mutual consent, where both the buyer and seller of labor are making a profit
real wages are raised by increases in a laborer’s skills, education, experience, etc…
making a wage floor above the value of a laborer’s skills will eventually lead to his unemployment, lower wages for workers still employed and less profit for an employer - everyone loses.

In order to look at the social and human fallout from this obviously destructive practice, many people jump immediately to the laborer’s situation. This is the most identifiable (as most of us fit this category) but actually it is important to first see the broader effects.

The Very General Effects
On aggregate, if the price of labor rises and a laborer’s skills, education and experience do not, then either two things happen. For those who argue that the laborers on the margin just get increases with everyone else, then 1) the company is forced to pay more for a less profitable, or possibly non-profitable employee. The business will fail if they continue this, removing the production of some viable good or service from the market. Or, 2) they will simply fire workers or hire less - also removing services from the market.

These are the most unseen affects, but they are the most dramatic. In both instances there are less goods and services added to the economy. As population increases (increasing demand on these scarce items) this means a decreasing standard of living for everyone, or if the wage increases are much less, probably just less of an increase or a stagnation in living standards.

The Poorest Made Poorer
Now, for the workers, they have a very visible problem in this situation. The people who fetch a labor price below whatever the minimum wage are the more unskilled, uneducated, very young, very old, disabled, unexperienced, untalented or disadvantaged in society. Because their combination of abilities does not produce something worth more than minimum wage, they are effectively banned from legitimate work. Remember the minimum wage law does not say that employers shall raise wages above a certain price; it says that there shall be no work under a certain amount.

This is because raising the minimum wage is like raising a high-jump bar - it’s a barrier one has to get over in order to get a job. Every little bit that it is raised, removes more and more people (and again, the most disadvantaged) from the market. They have no other option but to seek a wage from an illegal market of some kind - usually crime, selling drugs, illegal work or just living on welfare or charity.

The Removal Of Opportunity
Even more sad is that these people, with the training and skills they could receive on the job, even most low wage jobs, would eventually gain enough skills and experience to demand real increases in their wages.

This has been seen with teenagers, who are usually worth less than minimum wages. In fact, many states and counties have made exceptions to minimum wage for teenagers (what terrible child labor exploiters!!) because of this effect. Otherwise, these kids come out of school when they are 18, and many have few skills to offer employers - or, they believe they don’t because they have been banned from first hand experience in the market.

The Humanitarian Myth
Minimum wages are widely popular because these things are either not considered, or even more deplorably - they are ignored. The most helpful thing to the poorest in skills among us is to allow them to work, gain training and make money, rather than sacrifice them to crime or illegal work so that we all can feel better about ourselves. If we truly care about workers on the margin, then we would stop baning them from work, and instead educate ourselves before we start passing laws.

The Minimum Wage I: Economic Analysis

Published by Colin October 24, 2007 in General and Politics. 9 Comments

The minimum wage is a popular and well-thought-of piece of legislation which many people believe is only helpful - or, may have some drawbacks but is more helpful than not. Fortunately, the minimum wage can be looked at objectively by examining how general economic law works as well as socially, by examining what kind of affects the minimum wage has on real people. This two-part article is designed to look at the minimum wage at a fundamental economic level and then for its broader impacts on society.

Removing Morality
For the first part of this article, a pure economic analysis, we must put aside anecdotes and emotional arguments. For example, “but he’s a waiter and deserves minimum wage!” is not a valid point right now, because we are going to look at pure economic law and effects. If the reader comes into this analysis unwilling to engage the material for what it is, then the reader should be honest with himself and admit that he does not want his preconceptions on the idea to be challenged.

Many times, this results from not taking a moment to remove the subjective morality or “fairness” ideas that one brings with them into an argument. Besides, we will deal with these entirely in part II - so just hold your horses.

Wages as Prices
What is a wage anyway? Often, people don’t make the connection that wages are just another price in the massive global market of good and services. Just like a new bike has several components and interactions on the market that determine it’s price, so to does a person’s time and skills - their labor - fetch a price based on these same phenomena.

We only separate out wages into a special category because in modern society, this price has a significant impact on the seller (the employee is selling his labor; the employer is the buyer of labor) because his livelihood, status and often his access to opportunities are dramatically affected by the price he can fetch on his labor. But those are moral considerations, and you promised not to go there until next time, remember?

We have to understand that a price on a wage is reached when there is mutual consent - the employer wants the labor more than he wants the money from the wage and the employee wants the wage more than he wants his time. So if a price can be reached, then it is because both parties believe that they are better off.

People have to trade this way because there is scarcity - not only are material goods finite, but time is finite as well. So demand and supply can’t shoot up into infinity. If it were so, we could legislate a minimum wage as high as we liked and there would be no consequences. However, because things are finite, there is a limit to how high we can raise a wage through legislation.

How Wage Prices Are Determined
Jobs and wages do not come about by employer generosity (or, on the contrary, greed). That is, companies don’t just provide jobs for kicks and don’t pay wages as charity. They actually have a demand for labor in order to get something done - the end result of which is likely for their profit (either financially or maybe idealistically [they need labor to build a free hospital in Sudan]). If they don’t think this way then they lose money and go out of business (and provide no jobs by the way).

On the other hand, laborers are not slaves by nature - they only want to trade their time if it benefits them. In most cases, this is to seek a wage that provides at least their basic subsistence and usually a little more than that - again this is profit.

These two parties meet somewhere above the employee’s minimum value on their time and somewhere below the employer’s cost for what the labor produces. The price is driven down by the scarcity of demand - the less demand for labor, the lower the price that laborers will have to set for their abilities. The price is driven up by how talented, experienced, educated, hard-working, skilled and so on the laborer is. The more talented the laborer, the more objective value he has in the market.

What a Price Floor Does
If then, a wage is just like any other price, than a price floor (a minimum price allowed) is going to have a universal effect. If we legislate that gas, for example, must be at least $5 a gallon to help those poor oil companies, then a lot of people are going to go without gas, simply because they can’t afford it (other will have to cut back significantly in other areas to pay the increased price). It might elevate all the profits from gas for just a little while, but the customer base is going to shrink a lot more than it normally would. So you may have the average customer paying more for gas, but you will have so few of them that, in time, the gross profit is going to actually be less. Neither of the parties benefits.

Say it’s a price floor on wages now. The minimum wage is $15. It’s not just a matter of everyone currently making $5.15 getting a whopping raise. Rather, many of the employee’s customers (employers) can no longer afford their service. In fact, so many employers would be unable to buy labor at that rate that over time, the net profit on labor is going to go down. In fact, the scarcity of jobs is going to rise so much that those employees still left will make less money because supply and demand have been adjusted against them. There are less laborers to compete, but there are even less jobs, so all parties lose.

Raise the Sea - Float All Boats?
Many think of the minimum wage (and price floors in general) like a sea of water that carries boats with it as the water level rises. But employees are not floating - that would imply that their value is totally subjective. Rather, they have anchors, made of all the talents and skills, which hold them to the bottom. The anchors only get longer as more talents and education (and the like) are gained by the employee.

Realize that each employee is a unique combination of skills, experience, training and talents - no two are alike. They earn a unique price for their labor on the market. We’ve already established that someone working for $8 is not making that because their employers likes them “eight dollars worth” or is generous or mean, but $8 is the price that his labor can fetch on the market. What happens then when the minimum price allowed for labor rises above $8? Objectively, our $8 man is drowned because it’s not like his talents and abilities (which got him the price in the first place) increase along with the wage floor. No, we have raised the water level over his head, and drowned those least able to swim.

Tomorrow we will cover the social aspects of a minimum wage and take into account what kind of effects this has on working people and their families. This is the realm where most of the support for a minimum wage comes from.

American Imperialism

Published by Kenneth Martens October 23, 2007 in General and Politics. 1 Comment

In an 1898 essay called Distant Possessions: The Parting of the Ways, Andrew Carnegie addresses the top issue facing the United States: “Shall we attempt to establish ourselves as a power in the far East and possess the Philippines for glory?” Carnegie offers three reasons against this course of action:

Imperialism costs money
Imperialism violates the principle of liberty and self-governance upon which the United States is founded
Imperialism threatens the security and safety of the United States by bringing it into conflict with other colonial powers.

Colonies and Dependencies

First, though, Carnegie draws a distinction between colonies and dependencies. A colony is defined by populating the land with one’s own people, as in the case of Britain in Australia and Canada. A dependency is a foreign land that is ruled by but not populated by one’s own people, e.g., Britain in India. Carnegie offers much praise to the British, declaring “no nation that ever existed has done so much for the progress of the world,” but acknowledges that the time of empires has passed.

Imperialism costs money: Imperialism is outdated because it is not necessary for trade. Carnegie offers as proof the fact that the United States’s exports are the greatest in the world–American goods are sold around the world, despite the absence of any US colonies. Far from being necessary to trade, colonies actually cost the mother country financially: Spain’s rule over the Philippines netted them nothing, and eventually cost them a great deal.

Imperialism violates American principles: Carnegie draws a parallel between the Philippine struggle for independence from Spain and the American Revolution.

The aspirations of a people for independent existence are seldom repressed, nor, according to American ideas hitherto, should they be. If it be a noble aspiration for the Indian or the Cuban, as it was for the citizen of the United States himself, and for the various South American republics once under Spain, to have a country to live and, if necessary, to die for, why is not the revolt noble which the man of the Philippines has been making against Spain?

To establish rule over the Philippines would be to reject the principles upon which America is founded.

Carnegie’s most poignant statement about the Filipinos comes in a follow-up essay (Americanism versus Imperialism) written during the Philippine-American War:

They have just the same feelings as we have, not excluding love of country, for which, like ourselves, as we see, they are willing to die. Oh, the pity of it! the pity of it! that Filipino mothers with American mothers equally mourn their lost sons — one fallen, defender of his country; the other the invader. Yet the invader was ordered by those who see it their “duty” to invade the land of the Filipinos for their civilization. Duty, stern goddess, what strange things men sometimes do in thy name!

Imperialism theatens American safety: By virtue of geography, America is relatively safe from external threats.

To-day two great powers in the world are compact, developing themselves in peace throughout vast conterminous territories. When war threatens they have no outlying possessions which call [sic] never be really “possessed,” but which they are called upon to defend. They fight upon the exposed edge only of their own soil in case of attack, and are not only invulnerable, but they could not be more than inconvenienced by the world in arms against them. These powers are Russia and the United States. …

We repeat, there is no power in the world that could do more than inconvenience the United States by attacking its fringe, which is all that the world combined could do, so long as our country is not compelled to send its forces beyond its own compact shores to defend worthless possessions. If our country were blockaded by the united powers of the world for years, she would emerge from the embargo richer and stronger, and with her own resources more completely developed.

This natural geographical advantage, however, is lost if America must defend colonies around the world. A relatively small military is adequate to defend the continental homeland, but imperialism requires the ability to project force anywhere in the world. An imperial America must field a navy and army equal to the combined strength of the European colonial powers, which will be extraordinarily expensive.

Carnegie argues well, and although America did not heed his advice, I find myself agreeing with almost everything he says. Imperialism has cost the US money, it has violated American principles, and it has required the US to field a world-dominating military at extraordinary expense.

Emerging Impulses: Narrative Theology

Published by Jasen Tracy October 22, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 19 Comments

Narrative theology is the idea that “Christian theology’s use of the Bible should focus on a narrative representation of the faith rather than the development of a set of propositions deduced from the data of revelation.¹” Theologians in the Neo-orthodox and Post-liberal traditions developed it in the 20th century.

The Bible is seen as the story of God’s interaction with his people. This does not mean that the Bible doesn’t make propositional truth claims, but that the primary purpose of scripture is to record the relationship between God and his people (and how we today can continue in this story) more than detailing a systematic theology. One result of this, is that narrative theology is less likely to pull verse out of context to support doctrinal positions.

Narrative Theology in the Emerging Church
Perhaps the most obvious influence of narrative theology in the Emerging Church is the distrust and relatively low regard for systematic theology that many have. This is because systematic theologies tend to say more than what scripture actually says, and sometimes produces a very logically consistent theology that doesn’t do justice to the nuances in scripture.

Another influence of narrative theology is that it strengthens the value of community. In modern times, people have to often made Christianity into an individual faith, but the Bible’s story of God’s relationship to his people reminds us that community is essential.

The last influence from narrative theology I wish to mention is an increased attention to the story texts in scripture, especially the Gospels. As other groups (unwittingly) emphasize the propositional parts of scripture, especially the Pauline letters, many in the Emerging Church tend to focus more on the gospels. One important aspect of this, is the much greater attention paid to Jesus’ teaching concerning the Kingdom of Heaven than it typically receives from Evangelical circles.

God Actually Likes It When We Do Good Things

Published by Hungry Sasquatch October 19, 2007 in Religion. 32 Comments

Editor’s note: In the spirit of pursuing truth and engaging different views, Zeal For Truth will publish guest commentaries such as today’s article written by Josh Herchenroeder. He received a degree in Bible from Abilene Christian University, and then spent three years auditing grad school.

“All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags.” These words, taken from Isaiah 64:6, have become a banner verse for many conservative Christians. All believers who think we’re pathetic, horrible people who can’t get anything right or impress God in any way rally to this standard which seems to legitimize their low view of humanity. The prophet’s words become a universal indictment of Earth’s citizens. I have serious problems with this line of thinking. Not only does it ignore both the immediate context in Isaiah and the broader biblical witness, but it doesn’t even make sense.

Context Explained
The dominant theme of Isaiah 63 and 64 is confession and repentance. The prophet, speaking on behalf of the Israelite people, recognizes their corporate sin and its consequences, and he pleads with God to forgive and bring restoration.

The image that the text brings to mind is of a young lover who has wounded his beloved and realized his mistake, and now finds himself knocking on her door, holding a bundle of flowers up to the peephole. He doesn’t try to persuade her with rational arguments, but instead says things like, “I’m sorry. You’re right, I’m wrong. You’re beautiful, I’m ugly. I’m the dumbest guy ever for saying/doing/thinking that.” Is he truly the dumbest guy ever? Probably not. In the same way, the prophet uses self-deprecating hyperbole to say, “We’re screwed up and we can’t do anything right…will you take us back anyway?”

Even if my interpretation is off, it’s still difficult to argue Isaiah 64:6 is a blanket statement on God’s opinion of our actions. Just look one verse earlier: “You come to the help of those who gladly do right…” If our good deeds truly are filthy rags to God, why would he be interested in helping people for doing right?

Jesus Weighs In
I could run off a list of verses which offer a different perspective on how God feels about our righteousness, but I would rather explore an illustration Jesus uses to reveal God’s character. Matthew 7:9-11 reads,

Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him?

Jesus acknowledges that, while we are flawed and certainly not on God’s level, we can give good gifts. But what if we invert the parent/child metaphor and place God on the receiving end—after all, are not our good deeds gifts to our heavenly father?

A young child takes a few crayons and a piece of paper, and five minutes later presents an incoherent scribble to his or her mother. She doesn’t glance at it and declare, “This is crap; you’re a lousy artist.” No, her eyes widen with delight, and before you know it, the refrigerator has another masterpiece hanging on the door. If we respond with such joy at the meager offering of our children, how much more so does God, the source of all that is good in the world!

Does it Even Make Sense?
My house was broken into and robbed last week, and I was still in a foul mood when I showed up to work the next day. A cleaning lady named Ana stopped by my station to talk for awhile. Now, she barely knows any English, and I only know about twelve words in Spanish (and they’re all foods) but this has never deterred her from chattering on for several minutes straight. It always makes me smile, and this day was no exception. Later that day someone randomly brought me a cinnamon bagel, which also made me smile. These two small gestures brightened my day when I really needed it. Did God look at those two acts that were so meaningful to me and say, “That’s gross!”

And what about volunteers who are trying to bring peace and healing to a ravaged Darfur region? Surely God doesn’t view their efforts as useless.

In Man’s Search for Meaning,” Viktor Frankl recounts his tortured existence in a Nazi extermination camp. But alongside the horrors, he tells of the powerful impact when someone could find the strength within himself to offer encouragement, or even to generously offer his daily piece of bread to another. Did God observe such episodes and toss them in the laundry heap? Perhaps, instead, he thought to himself, “Yes, this is what I created them to do. See, even in the worst of times, my creatures can still do good.”

I really don’t have any way of knowing what goes through God’s mind, but I’m not sure why anyone would want to follow a God who treats our best efforts with contempt. Love is reciprocal in any legitimate relationship. If our good deeds truly are filthy rags to God, then how can anyone convincingly argue that he wants our love? If our righteous acts are no more than a dirty dishcloth, then what’s the point of moral living?

Zarathustra’s Christianity

Published by cchrisr October 18, 2007 in Religion and Philosophy. 7 Comments

Many people interpret Nietzsche’s death of God as a sort of “bad boy” metaphysics. That is, they see this as a critique of religion, Christian morality, etc. Yet this comes from a very strong misunderstanding of Nietzsche’s central character, Zarathustra. In this short essay, I would like to delineate two things: Nietzsche’s idea of the overman (some translate Uebermensch as “superman”) and how this idea is a reflexion of Christian thinking. To phrase this another way, Nietzsche relates himself to Jesus as Christ relates to the Church.

The Overman
From the beginning of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche shows how Zarathustra is constantly misunderstood and, in a related note, how Zarathustra misunderstands what the overman truly is. The overman is one who overcomes man; yet the best definition of the overman comes in the second book in the section titled “On Redemption.” In this section, Zarathustra defines redemption as “to redeem those who lived in the past and to recreate all ‘it was’ into a ‘thus I willed it.’” Not only that, but also to recreate it into a “thus I shall will it.” All the “good” and all the “bad.”

For Nietzsche, the mark of the overman is being able to look backwards into history (we’ll take a very extreme example, Auschwitz) and affirm it as good. We have examples of people who suffered through Auschwitz, such as Elie Wiesel. Throughout it, even as he says he saw God hanging in the gallows at the camp, he is still able to affirm life in the end. He is still able to esteem something. Can we affirm something so terribly horrible?

For Nietzsche, this derives from his view of mercy. In The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche defines mercy as the self-overcoming of justice, a definition directly related to the overman (the self-overcoming of man). The overman is able to show mercy to even the greatest wrongs against him because he has reached a place that is beyond the reactive nature of human morality.

Rethinking Christianity
Where do these ideas relate to Christianity? A prime example is the cross. Christians do not see the cross as an evil against Jesus, nor do they see the resurrection as revenge to correct the wrong. Instead, Christianity, in many ways, depicts the cross in terms of redemption. The cross is what redeems man and is not an action of vengeance. The redemption of the cross is one that redeems all past and all future. It affirms the Christian’s life as a “thus I will it.” Creation, for Nietzsche, involves both an annihilation of old laws and a creation of new values. These values are the innocence of childhood; that is the highest value in Nietzsche’s conception of the overman. It is the removal of guilt in one’s everyday living, but also an affirmation of all that has come to past. Can we affirm Auschwitz?

Zeal For Truth