Gifts From the Past

Today I submit a post that differs substantially from my previous discussions. Whilst lacking the analytical rigour and insightful perception of my usual blogs, this time I present a narrative, a tesimony even, on something that I feel led to share.

When I was in my early teens, I had a strange and sudden awareness one day whilst walking the dog. I felt that God was instilling me with some sort of psychological gift. The memory is perhaps best captured by the image of 'Neo' in 'The Matrix' being 'plugged in' to computer programmes that instantaneously impart information into his brain. This new-found ability consisted of the externalisation of self-perception: to be able to 'jump out of my own brain' and to see myself in the third-person. This is obviously impossible; even viewing yourself from without does not eliminate the definitional necessity that I must still be perceiving through my own senses or psyche. Hence, this was some sort of recursive, continuous process; I felt that I was able to continually jump out of myself into an 'external self' and then to immediately jump out of that external self into an ex-external self. An image of infinitely concentric circles serves to illustrate. In this way, the ability was one of a process, striving towards some non-human knowledge rather occupying some super-human persona.

The image of Neo performs well as a comparison, because it would probably be possible for Neo to know how to do something without knowing that he could do it (hopefully that was a cogent sentence). In other words, at some point in time, he may find himself in a situation that demands a particular skill, which he is surprised to find that he indeed possesses. He then retrospectively identifies the point in time at which he received this skill. This is indeed what happened to me.

I have an obsessive characteristic in my personality, which has led to both success and to self-destruction in my life. In this way it is not a virtue or vice, but rather a trait that has creative and destructive potential. Indeed, it is often thought that the link between genius and autism is not intellectual, but rather based on the obsessive characteristic of autism that allows a person to concentrate on one task, however menial, for long enough to discover certain patterns, which may in fact be obvious even if previously unknown. Indeed, most 'great theories' seem obvious once they have been discovered. Consider gravity.

After recovering from a debilitating illness, brought on through this obsessive trait, my psychologist remarked that I had displayed a remarkable, and in his experience unique, ability to externalise the problem. Indeed, recognition of the problem (which they say is half the battle) came very early on for me. Recovery then consisted of a battle between the external self, which consciously acknowledged the issue, and the internal self, where the issue lay. I was able to rationalise my own irrationality: to frame it, analyse it, and battle it.

This is obviously a necessary feature of any psychological recovery, especially for sustainability. However, after emerging from this episode in my life, I now look back on that time when I was but 14 years of age, as the point in time that God invested in me the capacity to defend myself from myself. In this way, God saved my life.

God has healed me in much more direct ways since then, which require expansive explication in themselves. However, I feel especially led to record this experience.

Types of Learning, Types of Worship

+How do you learn? Do you imbibe information and concepts graphically? Do you have to touch things in order to truly understand their nature? Do you have to interact with a thing before you can really know it? Or are you an abstract thinker, dealing with concepts as they appear in words?

I, for one, have always learnt through words. The odd graph helps to visualise the concept, but I have always been a natural reader of words. This lexical preference, however, extends beyond revising for exams. When I really want to interact with God, I delve into scripture.

To worship is to learn. This connection is bipartite.

First, to worship is to interact with God. Thanks to Christ, worship is bilateral rather than unilateral; that is, we respond to his action, and in turn, he responds to our worship. There is no need to construct memorials to an 'unknown God', no need to routinely offer anonymous sacrifices. Through Christ, we connect to God on a one-to-one basis.

Second, to interact with God is to learn about God. It will take eternity to understand him fully, which is why we will be worshipping for eternity. Whether you are reading his Words, worshipping him through songs, or whatever, you are firstly interacting with Him, and secondly learning about Him.

If this is the case, then it is crucial that we understand ourselves, in order to best position ourselves for worship. For some people, smells and bells works. For some people, routine prayers and familiar structures work. For others, spontaneity is required in order to truly engage themselves with what is occurring. Some like their worship loud and wild, stirring for the emotions, whilst others find this distracting, preferring a more tranquil form.

Allegorically, some people prefer to study in the silence of their room. Others favour some sort of soundtrack – whether it is their favourite classical music CD, or the hussle-bussle of a cafe environment. Some have to lock themselves in a library, whilst others will gladly stretch out on a blanket in the park.

This heterogeneity of preferences is not something to be shunned. There is no 'right' way of worship, because worship, although a collective endeavour, is fundamentally personal. Thus, personal preferences matter for the 'efficacy' of worship. But then, worship is obviously more than structured praise. As we know, it is about how we live our lives – every aspect.

My point is that each person is gifted differently, and as such, should focus their activities (both structured worship and all other aspects of life) so as to maximise their 'worship productivity'. In other words, each person, being a separate member of the Body of Christ, should specialise in the area in which they are advantaged. This ensures the smooth running of the whole; that is, the Church of Christ.

Obviously, there is a need for balance, and we should ensure that our worship is holistic. We should not neglect praise for Bible reading, or vice versa. Moreover, without 'core components' of worship, such as the Word and praise, one's ability to live a Christian life may be inhibited. However, the point remains.

So what works for you? If you learn through interacting with others, then make sure that you are discussing God with other people. If you learn through self-study, then leave yourself time to worship God through words. You get the idea.

As a concluding note, God knows us better than we know ourselves (he knit us together in our mothers' womb, he knows all the hairs on our head). He created us intentionally, just as we are. For that reason, he will expect our response to correspond to those features which he has invested in us. An interesting example is the appearance of God (yes, the one and only God) in the folklore of isolated tribes (see Eternity in Their Hearts). Generational, verbal stories were the method of learning for these (often illiterate) people. God knew this, and acted accordingly.

In sum, expect God to reach you through the way he has created you, and respond in kind. Keep in mind that you will have to be stretched, but remember that to seek knowledge is to seek God. Sure beats revising for an exam.

Jesus as a Solution

Jesus is the solution to a problem. In our permissive age, people no longer recognise that there is actually a problem; at least, they deny that man is inherently evil. The starting point for logical inferences usually assumes that man is inherently good - and therefore that any evil in the world must be enacted by man's counterpart, i.e. God (see post on 'Problem of Evil or Mystery of Love').

CS Lewis said that regrettably, before we can teach the 'Good News', we must first teach the 'Bad News'. During the summer, I passed by several churches, with advertisements (yes, advertisements), with slogans such as 'Power Church: adding value to your life'. Adding value? As an economist (aspiring), added value usually implies that there is already something 'good', to which value is being added. This implies that man is inherently good, and could be happy without God, but that he brings 'something extra' to your life, along with many other conveniencies that you may find in life, most likely through the exchange of money.

Should it not be 'creating value'? Is there really anything OTHER than Jesus worth living for (or dying for?) Of course not! Jesus is THE ANSWER, not AN ANSWER. I will demonstrate this in a somewhat formal manner.

Growing up in a Christian home, I was taught the solution first. This was great - it allowed me to have a very rich childhood. However, you often forget (or assume away) the problem. It is for this reason, I would argue, that many people are perturbed by the Old Testament, full of massacres, death, punishment, and war. I think I know why we have the Old Testament - in fact, I'm sure of it. Paul says that we have the law to show us our sins. If we did not have it, we would not understand that we need help, quite desperately.

The reason is that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The two clauses of this verse represent the Old and New Testaments respectively. I will treat them as two sides to an equation.

Firstly, the old Testament.

Creation: man is created in God's image, that is, with eternal life.
Man = Life

Man sins. Subtract sin from both sides of the equation.
Fall: Man – Sin = Life – Sin

and because the wages of Sin = Death,
Man – Sin = Life – Death

Not only is life non-eternal (the right side of the above equation), but life is bound by sin. Rearrange to get
Man + Death = Life + Sin

New Testament:

Jesus adds a new variable and a new equation:
Jesus - Sin (takes on our sin) = – Death (takes away death) + Life (gives life)
The left side is the crucifixion. -Death represents Mercy, whereas + Life represents Grace.

solving simultaneous equations,
Jesus = Sin – Death + Life --> Sin + Life = Jesus + Death
Man = Sin + Life – Death --> Man = (Jesus + Death) – Death
--> Man = Jesus,

and we know that Jesus = Sin – Death + Life, and that Sin = Death (so that Sin – Death = 0)

--> Man = Life, and Life = Jesus

We are left with eternal life. How? Only if we accept the process above, particularly the solution of simultaneous equations. If we refuse to let Jesus 'substitute' Himself for our Sinful Life, we remain not only with that Sinful Life, but always with Death.

People often wonder whether they could live with having to serve God. I think the question is, can you live without him?

Analysis of Life

Integrity

It is a common teaching in Christianity: to be 'in the world' but not 'of it'. As CS Lewis put it, we are 'soldiers behind enemy lines'. What does this mean? Obviously, we should not 'conform to the pattern of this world'. I do not wish to recapitulate all of the ramifications of such a commandment; rather, I intend to elucidate some of its implications for Christians who live within the institutions of the world, whether they be cities or companies.

My main point of reference is the book of Nehemiah. There are three aspects of this scripture which strike me, and to which I will refer in this analysis: 1) Nehemiah's favour with King Artaxerxes, 2) The rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, and the moral reformulation that this entailed, and 3) The marriage of work and faith.

Firstly, Nehemiah was given permission by a pagan King to rebuild the City. Moreover, he was granted the resources to do so, and even safe passage from his current location. This unprecedented, unanticipated and undeserved generosity was clearly the providence of God; in the same way that He hardened the heart of Pharaoh, so he softened that of Artaxerxes, so that his Will be done. As Christians living in secular institutions, let us never permit ourselves to believe, even subconsciously, that somehow human rules precede those of God (see my post on 'Divine Authority'). Every government, law or rule that exists has been approved by God, because He is ultimately authoritative, without exception. Furthermore, if any of these do not adhere to the Divine Law, they will soon become irrelevant and discarded.

Importantly, however, it was the short prayer of Nehemiah that did the trick. Immediately before requesting permission, he asked God for help. Therefore, if we do not appeal to that Divine Authority, we will not be granted a hearing. Any door can be opened, but we must first knock.

Secondly, the physical rebuilding of Jerusalem was accompanied by a concomitant, and necessary, philosophical overhaul. The foundational principles of the city were consciously overthrown, solidified in written creeds. Specifically, the selfish pursuit of wealth was replaced by a pure devotion to God, complete with sacrifice to both neighbour and God, thus embedding an ethos of love. As Christians living in cities, or companies, we must ensure that our own efforts are based on this foundation of service to Christ, rather than on the (often selfish) motives of the world around us.

In particular, debts of all sorts were forgiven. I quote:

3 Others were saying, "We are mortgaging our fields, our vineyards and our homes to get grain during the famine."
4 Still others were saying, "We have had to borrow money to pay the king's tax on our fields and vineyards. 5 Although we are of the same flesh and blood as our countrymen and though our sons are as good as theirs, yet we have to subject our sons and daughters to slavery. Some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but we are powerless, because our fields and our vineyards belong to others."
6 When I heard their outcry and these charges, I was very angry. 7 I pondered them in my mind and then accused the nobles and officials. I told them, "You are exacting usury from your own countrymen!" So I called together a large meeting to deal with them 8 and said: "As far as possible, we have bought back our Jewish brothers who were sold to the Gentiles. Now you are selling your brothers, only for them to be sold back to us!" They kept quiet, because they could find nothing to say.
9 So I continued, "What you are doing is not right. Shouldn't you walk in the fear of our God to avoid the reproach of our Gentile enemies? 10 I and my brothers and my men are also lending the people money and grain. But let the exacting of usury stop! 11 Give back to them immediately their fields, vineyards, olive groves and houses, and also the usury you are charging them—the hundredth part of the money, grain, new wine and oil."
12 "We will give it back," they said. "And we will not demand anything more from them. We will do as you say." Then I summoned the priests and made the nobles and officials take an oath to do what they had promised. 13 I also shook out the folds of my robe and said, "In this way may God shake out of his house and possessions every man who does not keep this promise. So may such a man be shaken out and emptied!" At this the whole assembly said, "Amen," and praised the LORD. And the people did as they had promised.

The denouncement of the institution of debt occurred because it had ceased to be of value to the residents of Jerusalem. Rather than fostering and facilitating development, the (sometimes literal, other times financial) shackles of debt had began to impede progress. As Christians, we must continually reassess our actions as they pertain to the world, with respect to God: do they still serve a Godly purpose, or have they been subsumed in custom, tradition – 'worldly patterns'? This is what it means to be 'transformed by the renewal of your minds'. Only in that way can we ascertain His Will for our lives, and what that means for how we behave towards the world around us.

The third aspect of Nehemiah to which I refer is the combination of work and faith, which I have already hit on. The residents of Jerusalem found that 'specialisation' was largely inefficient. At first, some constructed whilst others defended. They found, however, that these two tasks need not be separated. All tribes, occupations and families of Jerusalem undertook the task of rebuilding their city, bar none; and likewise, all residents acted as guardians, bar none. The people were said to carry 'a tool in one hand and a weapon in the other'. We must act accordingly; we must not put down our faith when we enter the workplace, and likewise, we must not put down our work when we leave the office. God must occupy our entirety, as the foundation of whatever we pursue.

A specific formulation for the process of rebuilding and reconciliation can be as follows (according to the sequence found in Nehemiah): a) Repentance – firstly Nehemiah, and then the City as a whole, audibly and communally admitted their sins; b) Commitment – especially of the leaders: "In view of all this, we are making a binding agreement, putting it in writing, and our leaders, our Levites and our priests are affixing their seals to it”, we must devote our futures to God; and c) Continual Renewal – according to Nehemiah, “Day after day, from the first day to the last, Ezra read from the Book of the Law of God. They celebrated the feast for seven days, and on the eighth day, in accordance with the regulation, there was an assembly”. God must be engrained into the very fabric of our institutions.

We are not of the world in which we live. To answer my first question, 'what does this mean?', I reply that it is our task to change the world to conform the pattern of God. That requires, however, that we first align our own lives accordingly, for it is primarily by example that changes are made, even radical ones.

To exemplify, I may apply my analysis to the City of London. For ages, the city has thrived on finance. The current crisis has exposed its faults, especially the way that an ethos of selfish gain manifested in excessive risk accumulation. Hence the passage in Nehemiah seems applicable: "Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire."

Those still working in the city therefore face a Herculean task, but are also confronted with a unique opportunity. To reform an immoral system when it has been destroyed, as Nehemiah found, is much easier than to change it when it is strong. It is our imperative, therefore, to ensure that what replaces this Hedge-Fund-driven economy is one that adheres to God's directives.

Even Jerusalem, within Nehemiah's lifetime, receded back into its sinful past, greatly displeasing Nehemiah. Written contracts, when underwritten by men, will never be truly binding. Each new generation faces a decision, but it is our responsibility as Christians to do what we can to ensure not only that we make the right decision, but also that future generations inherit a structure of integrity.

It is this word, 'integrity', that synchronises all the aspects of this discussion. Physical integrity takes the form of a solid wall to defend the city, or perhaps an efficient economic system. Moral integrity takes the form of imbuing that new structure with the principles that please God. As the crisis has shown, the two are ultimately synonymous, not dichotomous as is often presumed. Nehemiah knew this, which is why it so concerned him once the residents of Jerusalem reverted to their sinful ways. We are all accountable to God: prioritising material integrity at the cost of moral integrity will achieve neither, whereas seeking first His Kingdom and His Righteousness will ultimately yield the greatest rewards.

The Law of Love

The applications of love abound. The universal essentiality of the thing is incomprehensible; and yet, we must strive to comprehend it. For it is in this eternal pursuit that love increases. As we endeavour to grasp the existence of everlasting, unconditional love, we grow increasingly closer to the Heart of God. As He, being Love, reveals Himself to us, so we fall deeper in love with Him.

I begin by a simple outline of a common economic theory: that of ‘Supermarket Wages’. It is commonly recognised, indeed empirically supported, that paying workers the minimum wage possible is not, in fact, economic. If their reward only marginally outweighs the opportunity cost of work (i.e., leisure or alternative work), then they have little incentive to apply effort. Indeed, if workers are offered the minimum amount for them not to leave, why should they work any more than the minimum amount for them not to be fired?

The employer is then forced to monitor the worker’s behaviour to ensure that s/he does not ‘shirk’, or ‘skive’ when nobody is looking, thus incurring administrative costs. Economists agree that by paying workers a fixed premium (perhaps sweetened with performance-dependent perks), the company acts in its own interest; even if at first its staffing costs increase. Firstly, if the worker understands that the equivalent occupation in a competitor company will not pay as much, s/he will be incentivised to keep his/her job. Secondly, s/he will feel a sense of self-worth, and will hence be (even unconsciously) more motivated. Thirdly, if rewards depend on performance, the worker obviously acts in his/her own interest by working as hard as possible. Moreover, non-pecuniary rewards, such as prospects of promotion, will have the same affect.
In other words, you get what you pay for. If you rip off a worker, you get ripped off. Likewise, if you as a worker rip off your company, you’ll end up paying through low-wage employment, unemployment, or low self-esteem.

This is a simple example of the law of reciprocity (‘you reap what you sow’; see previous blogs). Interestingly, during the slave trade, many of its detractors argued in purely economic terms, regardless of its moral dimension. Whilst we often associate abolition movements with William Wilberforce, and the civil rights movement with Martin Luther King, there are those who agreed with the proposition of freedom simply out of self-interest.

To elucidate, apply the law of ‘Supermarket Wages’ to the idea of slavery. A slave works because s/he is compelled to do so. There is no alternative, no potential competing employer, and so the master sees no immediate reason to treat the slave with any manner of decency, or to reward his/her work. The slave works sufficiently so as not to receive a beating, and if the master is not gauging performance, will just as soon drop his/her sickle (or run away). Indeed, even some masters understood this law of reciprocity, and did in fact reward good behaviour in various ways, for instance through the prospect of ‘promotion’ to house-servant.

Hence, many abolitionists argued that the prospect of free labour would in fact be more economic. Not only would workers in poor nations flock to the prospect of paid work, all competing with each other and so attempting to outperform other workers, they would work harder once employed to keep their job. If you ‘do to others as you would have them do to you’, then – remarkably – they will do likewise.

Similarly, by repressing the potential of the black population, the United States denied itself a large part of its workforce and uncovered potential. Moreover, the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany, which gave reason for Jews to flee to other countries (such as the United States), contributed to the downfall of their enterprise. A relatively miniscule race in terms of quantity, the Jews have displayed remarkable quality, through academic and practical ingenuity, receiving more Nobel Prizes than any other two groups put together. Think of Openheimer. Einstein, for crying out loud. Hitler did indeed ‘sow the seeds of his own destruction’.

I would like now to return to the issue of slavery. During the Transatlantic Slave Trade, Christians were divided on the message of the Bible at is pertained to slavery. Whilst ‘godly’ individuals possessed many slaves, and Paul evidently condoning it in several of his letters, it seemed to contradict the basic principles of love, on which Christianity seemed to be based. Resultantly, many people (especially those who had stocks in slave-fuelled companies) argued that slavery was in keeping with their faith, whilst others disagreed.

Whilst both the moral argument (essentially, one of ‘Love’) and the economic argument (which was just as self-serving as slavery) both led to the same end (eventual abolition), it is the thought that counts, and the difference between selfishness and selflessness did not elude God’s Divine Order. What replaced slavery was a system of ‘indentured servants’, which was essentially slavery by another name.

So who was right? From our liberal paradigm, we would obviously condemn notions of forced labour, even without the backing of biblical directives. Strangely, however, most of those who publically reproached slavery on moral grounds were often those who held the biggest shares. Contradictions abound. Paul states that ‘there is neither slave nor free’ because ‘all are equal in Christ Jesus’.

I now refer to one of my first blogs, that on Divine Order and Divine Authority. We are to obey the governments in place, for any Earthly Authority is subject to Divine Authority. Slavery clearly is not part of the ‘Divine Order’. For this reason, it has never lasted as an institution. It emerges, but eventually the bubble bursts. Whether we are subjected to humans or not, it makes no difference: for we are all subjected to the authority of God.

Moreover, we are all forgiven by the Grace of Christ. Earthly dependencies have no bearing, and so are irrelevant. Jesus didn’t free the Jews from Roman bondage; rather, He gave them a means to transcend it, and enter into a new Kingdom. Any empire is fated to self-destruction (I need not invoke historical examples, for they are apparent; indeed, see blog on ‘Nation-Building’) because it is fundamentally a self-serving enterprise, and so will reap what it sows. God hates slavery; that much is undeniable. To punish the abasement of such an institution, all He has to do is stand back and let his Divine Order do its thing.

Interestingly, many of our abolitionist ‘heroes’ such as Wilberforce were not in fact advocating the immediate freedom of slaves: distinguish between abolition and emancipation, the former being the banning of the slave trade, the latter being the banning of slavery as an institution. In other words, many abolitionists proposed ‘amelioration’, whereby existing slaves would have their conditions improved, as they were not fit to face the vagaries of the ‘real world’ such as labour market competition and self-sufficiency.

We must ensure that we do not fall into the same trap of arrogance. When we as Western nations lend money to ‘those poor Africans’, are we simply re-entering into colonial systems, thereby taking up the mantle of our imperial ancestors? If so, caution is recommended, for this will not escape the vigilance of God. Are we acting out of self-interest, fulfilling what Bill Easterly calls ‘the White Man’s Burden’: a moral conviction that does not necessarily serve the interests of the purported beneficiaries? How do we measure our philanthropic ventures? By how much moral satisfaction we receive, by how much financial return we make, or by how much the people who need it most benefit? Are we like the continuously pregnant mother who cannot bear the thought of not having somebody dependent on her?

We may come to Christ on the fear of eternal damnation: allegorically, as workers we may work so as not to get fired. But as we draw closer to God, we find that suffering of any kind is irrelevant. Once the Jubilee Effect multiplies and spreads, the object of our concern surpasses earthly institutions. His Kingdom is not of this world.

Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (and vice versa). Invest in God-mandated endeavours, and you will draw closer to Him. Draw closer to Him, and you will invest all the more, those investments being blessed and ordained by God.

Re: Divine Order - ET Phone Home

Obviously, the Garden of Eden was perfect, without blemish. This much is ubiquitously understood. In terms of chronology, what we can extrapolate from the idea of perfection? Heaven, we know, is eternal, whereas Earth will 'wither away'. It would seem, then, that perhaps in the Garden of Eden there was no such thing as linear time. Why would there be?

Sin disrupted our link with God, and hence, with his dimension of existence. For this reason, Adam and Eve walked and talked with God as similiar beings, not as earth-dwellers hopefully sending an email to an unknown recipient in a galaxy far far away, as our relationship with God is often portrayed. We are earth-dwellers. However, we are not earthlings. We are 'extra-terrestrials', and when we pray, we are 'calling home'.

My point is simply this: when we enter into the Kingdom of God, which thanks to Jesus Christ is fully accessible to us even as imperfect beings, we enter into his dimension of chronology. God is the Great 'I AM'. He is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. How can he be in two places at the same time? Because in God's world, there is no difference between past, present, future.

Predestination and its concomittant paradoxes and dilemmas are hence nullified. Linear time is the result of imperfection, and the frustrations that are produced when our conception of time coincides with that of God are due to the divergence between perfection and imperfection.

In terms of prayer, it is worthwhile to reflect on the fact that the Lord's Prayer includes 'your Kingdom come, your will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven'. If we enter into a holistic view of time, our incentive for love, and our disincentive for fear, are both amplified. What have we to fear if we are pre-ordained? How much more have we to gain if life is eternal, by loving rather than storing up treasures on Earth?

For this reason, ET must keep phoning home. We have to stay in touch with our roots.

Love: extension #2

I believe that I have stumbled across another application of the utility of love (this really shouldn't surprise me; indeed, I firmly hold that love is universally applicable, and ultimately, universally beneficial). I now apply it to the area of parenting.

I love my family. Why? Because they first loved me. Does this sound familiar? If you have read much of the Bible, it probably does. We love Christ, and others, because He first loved us.

I have been blessed with an ideal family. In fact, I cannot imagine a better upbringing. My family has shown me unfathomable love.

The result, I dare say, is that my incentive to rebel against my parents is practically null. Why should I rebel against my parents, if their actions are so transparently out of love for me? They always have my best interests in mind. Because they have been selfless in their lifestyle (see previous post), I feel in their debt. To demand more of them, directly by way of requests for more money for example (they have already paid my way through university), or indirectly by rebelling and hence requiring them to dedicate yet more time and effort to me as a person, would be beyond selfishness.

And yet, I often do rebel. How wretched I am. My sinful nature (NB: I always thought it was laughable that people, including myself, often attribute 'sin' to 'sinful nature' rather than 'human nature', as if it is somehow external from the self; even 'human nature' brings comfort from the idea that others also struggle with the same demons) compels me to rebel, whether I realise it at the time or not. I don't think that I rebel for the sake of rebelling; I am just selfish by nature.

How, then, can we rebel against God? As the ideal, perfectly holy parent, he literally died for us, gave us His Son, understanding this principle absolutely. Because we cannot understand His love, it makes us respond in kind. Usually. Or, perhaps, sometimes. Anyway, it should.

Rules are made to be broken. My parents understood this, I think, and God certainly does. The Law exists to show us our sin, and God's perfection, because he fulfills it through Christ when we never can. Love, on the other hand, is made to be reciprocated.

Moreover, Love is contagious. Referring to my previous posts, because we are eternally in our master's debt, we have no reason, indeed no right, to demand payment from our debtors. And so God's single act of Love, giving Christ to die for our sins, the embodiment of the fact that God is love, paid for everyone's debt. If we are in debt to Him, and somebody is in debt to us, then, bicariously, that person is no longer in debt to us but also to Him (indeed, this is perhaps something that financiers should have grasped; it may have saved us a whole lot of hassle when trying to untangle this financial crisis). We have no reason or right to treat them as subsurvient.

Hence we have an incentive to show love to our neighbour as well as to God. This I term the 'Jubilee Effect' of Love, due to the analogy of debt cancellation.

I think that Love transmits itself in two ways: through expansion, and through multiplication, both of which carry the Jubilee Effect.

Firstly, when love is shown, love is returned to the giver. The original giver is then a receiver, and this gives him/her even more reason to act in a loving way. Although this is chicken-and-egg, once it starts, even between two people its magnitude can multiply ad infinitum. It is for this reason that eternity will just keep getting better. It is for this reason, moreover, that I begin to understand the sanctity of a family. A group of people who act in a loving way to each other will indeed reap what they sow, and God will bless their commitment to each other exponentially.

Secondly, when somebody is shown love, they act in a loving way, not only to the giver but also to 'innocent bystanders'. If each of these people are struck by the love shown to them, they may go on to act similiarly, to others. It is through this mechanism that I begin to understand the importance of a principled society.

Returning to the first post on this blog, it is by the Jubilee Effect, transmitted both expansively and multiplicatively (are those words?) that the Divine Order must be implemented.

Think of what one act of Love can achieve, especially if under the right circumstances. Consider the Good Samaritan. The man he helped would surely be in his debt from that point on, both financially and figuratively. Do you think that he would then go on to treat other Samaritans in the way that was commonly practiced at the time - one of demeaning derogation, of demeaning marginalisation? How dare he? Why would he?

All you need is love.

Love: extension

P.S.

There is absolutely no reason to feel self-righteous about living a selfless life.

As the Lord's prayer stipulates, we forgive our debtors because we are forgiven. And our debt to God, payed by his only Son, is far greater than the debts that anybody owes us. Remember the parable of the selfish man who owed the king money, but was ruthless when his own debtor failed to pay. The result? He ended up obliged to pay his own debt, and was forced into prison, subjected to a lower level than even his debtor.

We must remember that we are forever in His debt. We can never repay him, but thank God, we don't have to. The least we can do is to obey Him in forgiving those who wrong us.

Love and Investment/Nation-Building

You reap what you sow. This is a universal principle, embedded intricately in every aspect of life. Not surprisingly, it is also a Biblical principle; indeed, I have found that it is foundational for understanding the core of Christian teaching.

We are often told to act in a selfless way in the Bible, often in repsonse to a misdeed that has been performed against us. We are told to pray for those who persecute us, to turn the other cheek, to walk the extra mile, to give our cloak along with our tunic. What is the purpose of this way of living? What motive should underlie it? What is the result?

I believe that there are two reasons, inextricably linked, that justify a selfless approach to life. The first is that selfishness is counter-productive, as I will explicate hereafter. The second is that by acting selflessly, that is, by denying ourselves, we draw closer to God, reach a higher level of existence and contentment, and ultimately, benefit ourselves materially as well. Watch out though - if this last result becomes your objective, you will soon find that all of the above become irrelevant.

Crucially, therefore, they must be upheld by a selfless heart. Acting in humility for the sake of reward will yield only the reward that you seek, which is doomed along with this world. This principle, I assert, can be applied to every aspect of life.

Take investment, for instance. It has been widely acknowledged that the poor possess untapped productive potential. Investors, however, are usually turned away from microfinance because they fear (validly) that any income will be spent on immediate humanitarian needs, rather than on wealth creation through savings, which is bad news for the investor, who will lose out in the short term. But what if these immediate needs can eventually be satisfied?

The fundamental laws of economics, inscribed into human behaviour and understood, expounded, and elaborated in the Bible, dictate that the law of diminishing returns should apply. In other words, once we can overcome this initial barrier, the returns on our investment will be far greater than what we initially seek.

Even this initial stage of low returns should not be seen as a barrier. What good is it for man to gain the world yet forfeit his soul? Even if we receive no reward for our investments, we should feel obliged, justified, and indeed, priveleged, to offer them. Whether we are rewarded immediately, later, or in Heaven is up to God. What is evident is that the longer you wait for something, the better it gets; take any earthly desire, including hunger, marriage, sex, success. As Christians, we must see the time horizon on our investments as eternal, because, of course, they are. Moreover, we must see that our investments are guaranteed by the highest authority there is - not a central bank, not a financial watchdog or overseer, but God himself.

The recent success of microfinance bears witness to this truism. Indeed, even the chief economist at the World Bank has sung its praises. Default rates on loans to poor people in developing countries are negligible, especially in comparison to the recent sub-prime mortgage crisis that arguably triggered our current financial mileau. Borrowing (or equivalently, investing) with a selfish mindset will yield earthly returns; and because the earth is tainted with sin, these returns are corruptible, and ultimately, doomed to eventual crisis and inevitable failure. Lending with a selfless mindset will yield returns that multiply 'seven-fold-seven'.
This principle can be applied even to the self. Saving instead of consuming will yield higher possibilities for consumption in the future, even if it involves an intitial sacrifice. Obviously, there is a balance - saving the totality of one's income will not be very satisfying. But the concept remains, and the current financial crisis was caused in part by global imbalances; Americans were spending beyond their means, financed by Asian economies, which were saving to compensate. The immediate consumptive pursuit of happiness led to the eventual corrective adjustment, which proves to be more painful when all is said and done. Everything in moderation.

Lastly, I would apply the Biblical commandment of love (which Christ himself stated fulfills all other commandments) to the idea of post-conflict reconstruction and development. 'Mission accomplishment' was declared within weeks of invading Iraq, but clearly the war is far from over. In Afghanistan, winning the war requries winning hearts and minds, not battles. A selfish mindset of conquest will eventually lead to the downfall of empires, as the experience of Rome, the Third Reich, and any other imperialistic endeavour attest. Seeking to exploit resources will produce civil war, making trade inaccessible, thereby defeating the original purpose of invasion. A selfless mindset of improving people's standard of living will create a lasting relationship of trust; the trade and resources will follow.

The last shall be first and the first shall be last. This is an inescapable truth, and one which we should take to heart. The fundamental problems of poverty revolve around problems of collective action - each person in a group acts rationally according to their own interest, and within this hedonistic system of incentives, the collective outcome will be irrationality. Each person will be worse off. This concept lies at the core of problems of overpopulation, migration, pollution, theft, conflict, corruption, disease, and any other worldwide problem that you care to mention.

Love is the only solution. It is all that is required to access our inheritance of abundance, but without it, the door is locked. The key requires us to deny ourselves. Seek first his Kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you as well.

Divine Order: extension

The precise of this blog is simple: with divine order comes divine authority; with earthly order comes earthly authority.

The definition of ‘order’ has more to do with an arrangement than a sequence, and this detail is pertinent to the previous post, which dealt with the difference between God’s intended order and our earthly interpretation thereof, which tends to be primarily chronological. I append to the previous post that our prophetical interpretations also sway in this direction, which is sometimes enlightening but can also be deceptive. Consider, for instance, the numerous ‘double-layer’ prophecies in the Old Testament, which can allude to both Christ’s first and second comings. Consider, for instance, the verse that instructs us that God does not differentiate between a day and millennium. Consider, for instance, the strange sequential jump that our conception of life after death must entail, especially if we adhere to theories of ‘ultimate resurrection of the dead’, whilst acknowledging that everybody dies at different points in time.

Expanding the etymology of ‘order’ is primarily religious. However, notice the elaborations of the term. ‘Order’ can denote a society, usually a select, sometime clandestine, group of individuals either with common interests, achievements or heritage. In this sense of the word, it is not very different from a ‘family’. Another extension of the word ‘order’ is in a command (think military). Moreover, ‘order’ can express calmness (think a court room). And finally, ‘order’ can allude to a specific sequence of events.

This elementary endeavour at etymological exploration, however rudimentary, is informative. There is clearly a common strand to all of these usages (a proper arrangement or sequence, a family, and a command). Think of earthly ‘authorities’ that are emerging or have emerged. The EU, for example, is an attempt to create a proper arrangement. It is a select group (entry is restricted), and ‘orders’ are given (there is a notional hierarchy of command). The Old Testament law was an ‘order’: it set out a ‘proper’ way of living, with explicit commands, and it established God at the apex of authority.

One of the interpretations of 'order' was the calmness of a courtroom: a setting conducive for justice. Notice how we can never be justifed by the Old Testament law, because we can never fulfill it. Notice how no earthly order (take the EU) will ever be completely at peace, because its conditions will never completely be fulfilled. Without a proper 'order' (arrangement), 'orders' (commands) are not obeyed, and so the 'order' (group/society) falls apart, and its authority diminishes. The environment is not one of 'order', but rather of war, and justice flies out of the window.

The New Covenant is a different type of order. We learn that ‘everything is permissible, but not everything is desirable’. When love enters the fray, interests should become mutual. Commands exist, but they supplement our desire to follow them. A hierarchy exists, but we are forgiven, and so are considered as equals. In this sense, an ‘order’ becomes a ‘family’, and we can truly be called sons and daughters of God. Divine authority allows for justification by grace through faith, rather than by adhering to the commandments. Love allows for fulfillment of orders, creating a divine order and a divine authority, establishing an environment of order and justice.

However, those commandments do not lose relevancy. The Bible tells us that there is no earthly authority that has not been established by God, and we are indeed instructed to abide by earthly laws. The reason is that with divine order comes divine authority; with earthly order comes earthly authority – and crucially, earthly authority is subservient to divine authority. For this reason, the Tower of Babel could never stand. For this reason, nonexistent money could not propel the financial system. For this reason, ‘the Law’ is still relevant to us as Christians, because when we fail to act in love, we must be checked to ensure that we do not fall out of the new order of love, by which we are justified. Rather than subside into obsolescence, the Law becomes fulfilled, and engrained on our hearts. An analogy can be made to ‘the Temple’: Christ stated that he would rebuild the temple – what he was meant was that a physical structure (along with physical acts of sacrifice) was no longer required to enter ‘the Kingdom’. The Temple would be inside of each of us.

Christ is King of Kings, and so his kingdom is above any earthly authority. It is imperative that we understand that this divine order is not waiting for us in Heaven; it is right here, on planet earth, inside each of us. We must live our lives in accordance with the directives and purposes mandated to us.

One salient point is that justice and love are intricately connected by the concept of an order. We are punished for not following commandments (orders), only out of love (divine order) for us, because being inside the society (order) is better for us than being outside of it, which is the consequence of unpaid sin (the result of an improper order). Conversely, we follow orders out of love and so enter into the peace that surpasses all human understanding.

After all, if God = Love, and Love = Life, then if you don’t love God, you haven’t lived.

Divine Order: a season for all things

A question often heaved at Christians (often, by Christians) relates to the apparent contradiction between the coexistence of God's 'plan' and His 'will', especially if He is omniscient. In other words, if God knows what will happen, how can He have a plan that he wills us to follow, but which is still contingent on our obedience?

Again, I feel that the paradox is incorrectly presented. We have a very chronological perception of life. What we fail to take into consideration, however, is that (thanks to Christ), our life is not chronologically bound. Life on earth, to be sure, is finite - but a fundamental pillar of Christianity is that we are eternal beings.

If time is not an issue, then neither is this artificial timeline of causation. Christ's Kingdom is an eternal one. We come to Christ because he calls us, and yet each person has a choice. I propose that Christ's will is in actuality not a 'plan' as such, but rather an 'order'. It is not a system of causation, like a row of dominos, or even like Robert Frost reaching a fork in the road and picking one of two paths (see previous post). Rather, it is an entire existence; a holiness; a 'Divine Order'.

How would such an order appear? The Garden of Eden would bear close resemblence (essentially, Heaven). Everything is in balance. Male and female, God and man, Church and Christ, night and day, Heaven and Earth, water and land, mankind and animal, work and rest.

After sin, many remnants of this balance remain (if they did not, the Earth's proximity to the sun would mean that we would either smoulder or freeze), but many do not. It is not unreasonable to assert that natural disasters would not have occured in the Garden. Mental disorders, stress, hatred, violence, starvation - this are all symptomso of the abuse of the Holy Balance.

There is nothing new under the sun, according to Ecclesiastes. Our task is not to create the balance, but to discover it; to harmonise what exists, according to how God has ordained. How to discover this balance? I feel that other cultures often have a better grasp of this very spiritual way of living, even (or especially) non-Christian ones. When oriental cultures utilise 'unorthodox medicine', when Jews follow dietary laws and procedures of cleanliness, when the Spanish take a 'siesta' - these are all very spiritual attempts to tap into the spirituality of life that lies beneath everything we do, but which was veiled when sin came into the World.

Ironically, our attempts to alter this balance make us worse off and lead to the disorders mentioned above: depression, global warming, obesity/malnutrition, etc. Moreover, when people attempt to replace the balance, i.e. to create something out of nothing, God does not allow such alchemy to come to fruition. Furthermore, it is probably in God's mercy that such attempts are decimated before they are completed; for a temporary period of restoration to the Holy Order, however painful, is surely better than a permanent system of counterfeit order, which will inevitably be rife with dysfunction, mismanagement, and ultimately, death. The Tower of Babel was an attempt to supplant God's Divine Order with a man-made one, with devastating consequences, and other political ventures are comparable. Recent attempts to 'create life' in that weird Collider thing resulted in disaster. The creation of money that does not exist led to current financial crisis. For this reason, I am not afraid of the prospects of scientific research, such as stem cells. After all, there is nothing new under the sun.

All the strands of this argument are best summed up by Solomon: "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end." There is a season for all things.

"Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?
Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket,
or weighed the mountains on the scales
and the hills in a balance?"

The Road Not Taken

On one of my countless walks amongst the stunning nature of Cumbria, I was sitting by a river on a glorious summer’s day (imagine a regrettably ‘emo’ scene) in a very pensive mood. Perhaps ‘pensive’ is the wrong word. Rather, it was a state of stillness, of listening – ‘receptive’, so to speak. I was not attempting to formulate thoughts, but was rather facilitating the peaceful stillness necessary for knowledge to emerge. After all, there is nothing new under the sun. Knowledge is not invention; it is discovery of something already created.

This conception of knowledge is one that ties in nicely with the subject of this blog. Sitting by the river, a slight breeze was moving the trees. The river itself was flowing. I was struck by the ‘randomness’ of these movements. Then the wisdom ensued. Was it really random?

I had just finished reading ‘The Black Swan’ by Nicholas Taleb, a terribly mediocre ramble about our misconceptions of randomness (specifically, our attempts to ‘rationalise’ randomness and our consequent inability to forecast or adequately explain extreme outliers, the very events that really ‘make history’).

I began to realise that nothing is in fact random. The movement of the trees was caused by specific forces of gravity and wind, which emanated from the earth’s orbital rotation and collisions of hot and cold fronts. Likewise, the flow of the river was in fact dictated by the shape of the river bed, the momentum built up over time, the height of the source as compared to its estuary, etc. A virtual diagram superimposed on reality would reveal an indecipherable system of incalculable physical equations for any given moment of movement. The fact that we cannot account for all of these forces does not mean that they are random; only that they are complex (specifically, that they are too complex for our brains to synchronise).

Can this idea be applied to the problem of Free Will? There are many variants of this ‘problem’ (‘If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, how can we have choice?’ being the most pertinent). A commonly heard phrase when playing football is ‘unlucky’, usually declared upon a narrow miss of some sort. In fact, there is no ‘luck’ involved. Even if a sudden gust of wind carried your shot wide, the fact that the ball did not hit the back of the net is explained by very (unpredictable) rational forces.

Chaos Theory may have something to say on the matter. A butterfly may flap its wings on one side of the world, initiating a series of events that may eventually result in an earthquake thousands of miles away. It is unpredictable, but it is not random. We can trace the path of causation using our understanding of physical forces. They key point is that it is explicable, but not predictable. For this reason, history books are easier to (accurately) write than prophecy.

When somebody makes a decision, there are usually forces that influence that choice. I chose to wake up late this morning because I had no deadlines or appointments. But I could have just as easily woken up earlier, If I had so chosen. In economics, I find this logic ubiquitously: Player A chose Option A because the value of Option A exceeded that of Option B. Economics often runs into problems when Player A instead chooses Option B (‘the narrow path’?).

I assert the following. The fact that we can attribute decisions to rational motivations and influences does not negate our free will. Rather, it makes our free will all the more important. Would you rather have choice that is blind, i.e. based on no evidence or value, or one that allows you to weigh up expected benefits and costs, and proceed accordingly?

I am not saying that trees are hit by a gust of wind and then face a decision whether or not to sway in the breeze. I am saying that humans are faced with counteracting forces. Unfortunately for us, a decision of indecision will lead us to ‘default mode’. Likewise, a decision to go against all forces (acting on our own understanding) will also condemn us to the default mode, as there is no wind to carry us. We will be reduced the deterministic sequence of trees and rivers. Moreover, our default mode is one of sin. So inaction and ‘going our own way’ both result in the forfeit of our free will, and for this reason, the actions of most human beings is regrettably predictable.

The value of free will is that it allows us to betray our human nature and follow a different force. We can ‘go against the flow’, but to do so, we must still submit to another.

Either way, the paradox of free will is that we are too weak to act on our own strength. We can serve one of two masters. Either way, the choice is between to countervailing forces. When Robert Frost faced a fork in the road, he chose the ‘Road Less Travelled By’. He could not walk through trees – he had to follow one path or the other. Nevertheless, he had the choice.

Problem of Evil or Mystery of Love?

I have learnt, in my many hours spent engrossed in episodes of Aaron Sorkin's 'The West Wing', that the best way to respond to an inconvenient question is to repudiate the premise.

According to 'the World', the problem of evil is thus structured:

'If God is all-powerful, and all-loving, why does evil persist?'

Notice that this is not a statement: it is a question (albeit a semi-rhetorical one). It establishes three premises: 1) God is all-powerful, 2) God is all-loving, and 3) Evil exists in the world. The causation is semantically implied. A full logical argument would thus proceed:

If an all-powerful and all-loving God existed, He would not allow evil to exist.
Evil exists.
Therefore, an all-powerful and all-loving God cannot exist.

The inference is either that a) no God exists or b) a god exists that is either not all-powerful or not all-loving, or both (and assumedly this would nullify notions of monotheism).



Let us return to the original premises.

1) God is all-powerful, 2) God is all-loving, and 3) Evil exists in the world.

I accept these premises. However, I add another premise, which I believe to be indisputable.

4) The evil that exists in the world is man-made / Human beings are evil.


Now let us rephrase the Problem of Evil.

If human beings are evil, and God is all-loving, why does He love us?


Elaborating, I append a further premise: 5) God is all-righteous.

We are left with a more refined Problem of Evil, which really, is a Mystery of Love:

If human beings are evil, and God is all-righteous, all-powerful, and all-loving, why does God love us rather than simply destroy us?

The logic of the mystery is completed when we attatch a final premise: 6) God is love.