Re: Religion

Consider the following verse:

Matthew 10:16-17
But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. Nor do people put new wine into old wineksins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.

Religion, Jesus, and Love

We know that the Church is the Bride of Christ. His vision is for the body of believers to be united as one, in communion with the Holy Spirit, to serve and abide with Jesus Christ. The purpose of this blog is not to assess whether the Church in its current form fulfils this vision or not, for I am nobody to judge (and I would not wish such judgement on myself, which according to the Word is the consequence of judging others). I merely intend to provoke a question about the value of 'religion' as it pertains to the Church.

What is religion? For some, especially atheists, religion is a catch-all phrase that refers to a delusional institution bent on unattainable ideologies and destructive dogmas. To others, religion is a way of life, a code of conduct so to speak. Religion, in my view, is the man-made system of interaction based on a particular belief. In the Christian context, religion must refer to the standardised consensus on morals and the set way of 'doing things' within the Church. In other words, there is a difference between Christians and Christianity: the latter is not merely the sum-total of the former, but rather a particular set of directives stipulated by man.

To understand the value of religion for Christians, we must understand the origins of Religion, for it is a value-laden word. For the Hebrews, religion and faith were inseparable. To access the holiness of God, rituals had to be rigidly followed: read the book of Leviticus for more information. Dietary laws, circumcision, ritual cleansing, sacrifices, alms, and other rules and responsibilities were needed so that, through the institution of the Temple (and the Tabernacle), the Jewish people could approach the holiness of God in spite of their sin. For this reason, only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and only once a year, at set times, with certain prerequisites. This system of 'religion' was indeed man-made, but it was demanded by God.

Needless to say, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ dramatically transformed our relationship with God, and therefore the place of religion in that relationship. First, salvation was for all people, not only the Jews (see Hebrews for more details). Second, and most important, our righteousness, and by implication our justification to enter God's presence and receive his blessing, now comes by the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and not by works, as Paul (who was a religious fanatic at one point) so vehemently declares. So, although we must still be righteous to enter the kingdom of God, that righteousness is available through Christ, who completed the work for us. So when Jesus tells us that "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven", we should question the value of man-made systems of conduct.

We can see the Temple, or the Tabernacle, as a kind of mirror; the Jews could indirectly see God, as if through a veil. Christ has removed the need for that mirror/veil. What use is the Tabernacle, if God himself, through his Son, has “tabernacled among us”? Observe Matthew 23:
16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.” To be 'religious' when Christ has bypassed religion is like listening to your iPod at a U2 concert.

Indeed, Christ challenged the religious customs and authorities of his day, to a rather provocative degree; I need not recapitulate the havoc he wrought in the Temple when it was infested with moneylenders, the irritation he caused by healing on the Sabbath, and indeed the extremely derogatory language he used to describe the Pharisees: "brood of vipers", "hypocrites", and such like. Indeed, Matthew 23 lists "seven woes" on the teachers of the Law. They crux of the hypocrisy is that religion (which is by definition man-made) stipulates a standard that its proponents cannot attain; and yet this standard is forced on 'sinners':
1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them... 25 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. 27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”

Hypocrisy is not only 'morally intolerable', but it is destructive. To attempt to remove the speck from another's eye with a plank obstructing your own vision will result in some pretty messy surgery. Observe Matthew 23:13
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to...15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.”” For this reason, we are told to "guard against the 'yeast of the Pharisees', for a little yeast leavens the whole dough. In modern terms, we can see why so many people are repelled by Christianity in its current form: they see it is a rigid set of rules that condemn the disobedient to a fiery Hell, with the promise of eternal life reserved for a select few of religious saints, who embark on holy crusades to save the barbaric infidels. How contrary is the message of Christ to this message, which is the one that is so often disseminated, explicitly or implicitly, by Christians?

To accept religion it to accept its consequences; that is, to state that religion is the key to salvation is to deny the grace of Christ. Observe Galatians 5:1-4
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace” Paul goes on to desire that those who preach circumcision should emasculate themselves. Also Observe Matthew 23:
“29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started! 33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.” If somebody wishes to rely on their own righteousness salvation, they will come across difficulties.

What is the alternative? Continuing in Galatians 5:
“For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.... 13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” So how can we, as followers of Christ, act in a way that connects with people? To act in love.

It is apparent that goodness occurs everywhere, and good works are done not only by Christians. We must not be like the Jews that tried to restrict the diffusion of Christ across the world, for Christ is for all people. Observe Matthew 3:
“7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptising, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” We must ensure that we are not using religion as a means of exclusion; for the consequences of such manipulation are dire.

Indeed, there is a connection between believers and unbelievers: a latent potential in those who are spiritually dead that we must appeal to. Observe James 1:26-7:
“Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” Observe also Matthew 23:23:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practised the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” Few people, Christian or otherwise, would deny that justice, mercy and faithfulness are desirable virtues. By demonstrating these traits, Christians can represent Christ Jesus.

So what is the value of established religion? Observe Matthew 23 once again:
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honour at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. 8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” Is religion self-serving? If so, it should be discarded. Christ's vision is for a Church ordained as a bride fit for a wedding. We must act in love, and disregard the tendency for systems of man to stray towards means of manipulation, hierarchy, condemnation and self-righteousness: the very trappings from which, through Christ, the World is free. If Christ came again today, as he did in the year 0 AD, would the Church recognise Him? He would most likely be ignored due to the 'unspectacular' nature of most of his relationships; condemned for his dealings with 'sinners'; and most likely be called ostracised for his unconventional methods and direct criticisms of established authority.

The Law and the Prophets are summed up in the Law of Love (see an earlier post). That is what our religion should be.

Freedom of Self or Freedom from Self?

Freedoms always involve trade-offs, like human rights and security. The most important involves the self. If we are to demand freedom of self, we are committing ourselves to a life of servitude to sin. If, on the other hand, we desire freedom from self, we must be bonded to Christ. These trade-offs have long-term consequences: sin is not a generous master, and will dispose of its servants. Christ, by contrast, rewards His servants with everlasting life.

God's Economy

Grace is a public good: non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The fixed cost has been paid by Christ, and we are now all privileged to free-ride on the good. However, paradoxically, God’s economy suffers from demand-deficit unemployment. Because there is an infinite supply of perfectly elastic grace at zero price, there is no inflation as more capacity can always be utilised. For this reason there is no such thing as an excess supply of labour at a given price (the Mormons might have you believe that God's company has limited vacancies, but this is false). Moreover, there is no such thing as structural or frictional unemployment, because no prerequisites are required to enter into the service of God (the religious types might have you believe otherwise). However, grace is a perfect substitute for death, and so anybody who chooses death cannot also demand life. Unfortunately, For this reason, the demand of sin (which also has a perfeclty elastic price, set at 'death'), which unfortunately is also inelastic due to its addictive nature, constricts the demand for grace. As the demand for love is derived only from the demand for grace (as God is love), the amount of people employed in the service of God is limited and the total production of love is below full capacity.

Relativism and Transitivity

The toxic philosophy that has so pervaded our modern society, that of postmodernism, espouses a theory of relativism. This theory says that there is no absolute truth ontologically independent from human belief; rather, truth consists of what people take to be true, and is thus inextricably linked to its epistemology. So if one person says that God is not real, and another that God is real, both are correct. Obviously, this is logically nonsensical.

One interesting way to really demonstrate this absurdity is through transitivity.

Take three societies, each with the following 'opinions':
Society 1: A > B
Society 2: B > C
Society 3: C > A
If all societies are correct, we should be able to consolidate their opinions to reveal truth. Thus,

A > B, which > C, which > A.
Clearly, this is a fallacy. If we are to take all 'cultures' to be equally valid, then we must sacrifice the inference 'if A > B and B > C then A > C'.

However, if we use such deduction as our starting point, and thus accept that truth is absolute, then one of these societies must be wrong. For example, if we take Societies 1 and 2 to be correct, then both premises are fulfilled, and A must be greater than C. Society 3 is therefore WRONG. And so on.

One pertinent application of this idea is that of law. In a multicultural society, it is politically correct to say that all cultures should be tolerated. But how to tolerate a culture of intoleration? How to incoroporate Shariah Law into our Western law, when the point of Shariah Law is to vanquish any other values besides those of Islam? How to allow freedom of speech under the assumption that everybody is right when people preach racism or advocate hate crime?

Lines must be drawn.

Re: Economic Growth - Short Term v Long Term

Another insightful difference between the two schools is their chosen time frame of study. Neoclassical economists are concerned with long-term equilibria. Although deviations may occur in the short-term, the assumptions of rational actors, perfect information and efficient markets will act to counteract any slumps or booms. In the long-run, the only thing that affects growth is supply.

Keynes, on the other hand, felt that aggregate demand could be insufficient (leaving 'spare capacity' in the economy) or excessive (leading to unnecessary inflation), thus justifying government intervention to preserve full employment. In other words, prices would not adjust to the 'natural rate of output' (and thus employment) envisaged by the Milton Friedmans of the world (this links back to assumptions of risk versus uncertainty). For Keynes, there was no ontologically distinct 'long-term equilibrium' in the economy - multiple equilibria could be occupied in the short-run depending on the unravelling of unforseeable events and unpredictable 'animal spirits'.

The result of this disagreement is an inconsistency in emphasis regarding the time frame to be viewed. Ironically, however, Keynes always had some definite time horizon when economic growth would no longer be necessary (the age of abundance) and a social system could be employed, whereas Neoclassicals, whose methodology is far more long-term focused, had no long-term objective. In other words, Keynes was philosophically long-term but economically short-term, and the Neoclassicals were vice versa. Keynes lived in the short-term to achieve a long-term goal; the Neoclassicals lived in the long-term to achieve short-term goals.

What does the Word tell us on this matter? Paul stresses to his various churches that they should seek eternal things that moth and rust do not destroy. We should have an eternal perspective, thus giving us an appropriate understanding of our current situation. Thus, our methodology should be very much that of the Neoclassicists - we know what the final outcome will be, and thus can plan accordingly. There is a long-term equlibrium of Heaven, and so our actions should reflect that.

However, Christ also tells us not to worry about tommorow, for tommorow has enough worries of its own. In this regard, we should be living for the moment, rather than hoarding our manna for the next day. God will provide for us in the short-term. Therefore, unlike the Neoclassicists, and like Keynes, we should not have short-term objectives (such as wealth maximisation). Our philosophy should also be long-term.

The crux of the argument is that we actually live in two time-frames, one finite and one infinite. If anything, our long-term perspective of Heaven should affect our short-term behaviour in a way that causes us to treasure every moment and live as if it were our last. Keynes saw time as finite and discontinuous, and thus constrained himself to living in the present, even though is claimed goal was long-term. Neoclassicists saw time as infinite and continuous, and thus constrained themselves to living in the future, even though their claimed goal was short-term.

We should thus fuse the two strands of thinking. Our treasure is eternal, and so we should not seek to maximise our utility during our finite time frame. However, we should not worry, as Keynes did, about short-term issues that will even out over time. I think that this is what it means for Christ to give us 'life, and life abundantly'. To enter into the Kingdom of God NOW, whilst on Earth (our finite time frame) is only possible if we are adopting this way of living. It is not natural - usually we either micromanage our life to achieve some ambition, or we are blaze about our present because we have future security. As Christians, we have the gift of eternal life, and so should try to maximise THAT life. Often, that means giving up things of the world. As the Neoclassicists studied, we can achieve that long-term equlibrium RIGHT NOW, rather than waiting for 'the age of abundance'. However, as Keynes understood, our life on Earth is frought with difficulties, and we should see these in light of what are actually trying to achieve. Seek first His Kingdom, and all these things will be added to you.

Economic Growth and the Kingdom of God

Two schools of thought dominate academic economics, the choice between which determines the policy stance of a given government. I will not indulge the reader as to the comparisons and contrasts regarding the assumptions, methods and implications of these two schools, except insofar as they are relevant to the present discussion. Suffice it to say that Keynesian economics generally assumes that individual behaviour is significantly shaped by prevailing customs and that future risk is irreducibly uncertain and thus cannot be estimated using past data, whereas Neoclassical economics assumes that individuals are rational maximisers of 'utility', a vague notion of egoism that has been equated with income, wealth, and GDP, subject to discounts of risk aversity and temporal impatience that can be precisely calculated. The implications diverge broadly in that Keynesians stress the importance of maintaining full employment through fiscal policy in order to minimise the disruption caused by uncertain events, whereas Neoclassicists believe in market supremacy and unfettered competition to most efficiently solve society's problems.

It is also interesitng to comment on the objective of economic growth in each case. Economists usually assume that economic growth is desirable. What they usually fail to acknowledge is that 'money' is only instrumentally and not constitutively desirable; that is, it is only a means to purchase real goods and cannot directly be consumed. Neoclassical economists fall into the trap of taking economic growth to be the ultimate goal of society, without a coherent explanation regarding its theoretical underpinning. Indeed, the high levels of human development in areas of lower GDP, such as Cuba and Kerala, attest to the over-generalisation present in Neoclassical thinking. For this reason, Keynes asserted that the positive aspect of economic growth is not that it makes society richer per se, but that in doing so it allows people to have more 'feliticious states of mind' and so act in a more socially desirable manner; the logic being that when one no longer feels the need to fend for one's survival, or even to increase the feasibility set through waged labour, a state of social equity can be arranged. So Keynes saw economic growth as a necessary evil; in fact, he was more than derragotory of the 'love of money' that has so pervaded capitalism, and indeed, has come to define it.

I argue that both schools, by eschewing the moral foundations of Christ, pursue the wrong goal, and moreover perform that endeavour using the wrong means. Because the Kingdom of God is not sought, 'these things' are not added.

Keynesian economics attempts to avoid God. It sees the future as inherently uncertain, and thus attempts to avoid volatility. Moreover, the ultimate goal of economic growth is to achieve 'the good life' through abundance, after which point Keynes argued capitalism should be discarded for a more socially benevolent system. But surely this point is arbitrary. He was right to assume diminishing returns in money to happiness, but abundance cannot be defined so long as scarcity exists - and in a physically limited world, that is always the case. In essence, Keynes attempts to construct an Aristotlean utopia based on human ethics, and is thus doomed. What do we see as a result of eras of adherence to Keynesian principles? Stagnation and a lack of progress.

Neoclassical economics, in its own way, also assumes a divine authority. If the future can be exactly calculated down to a probability function, if humans are predictably rational and markets perfectlye fficient, then selfishness is actually virtuous. Moroever, because money is taken to be the ultimate objective of life, a narrowly defined version of happiness is available to those who can pocket the most cash, and moreover, is ethically positive. For this type of economics, there is no horizon of abundance; the game goes on forever. Wat do we see as a result of eras of adherence to Neoclassical principles? Crises and revolution.

There are several points worth noting. First, the moral sentiments of these two man-made systems diverged, as underlying goals of economic growth. Second, the rationality employed to achieve those goals diverged, in the form of distinct assumptions about human behaviour and risk. Third, neither was able to reach their chosen goal through their chosen means: Keynesian economics reaches stagnation before abundance, and Neoclassical economics confronts crises that interrupt its incessant march.

Abundance of life is only available through Christ, and more importantly, so is satisfaction in that abundance. If our goal is Heaven, then we will experience the Kingdom of God.

Re: Re: Rationality Versus Feeling

Secularism is reduced to human judgement, and distances itself from any recourse to spiritual reference points. For this reason, it can never claim an absolute truth.

First, humans all over the world, at any given point in time, disagree both in what is logical and what 'feels good' or 'feels right'. For example, if you ask an American about human rights, you will get a very different reponse than if you asked a Chinese person. If you ask an Indonesian tribesman how important is the pursuit of money and wealth, again you would get a different answer than from an American. So how can we say that human rights are absolute, or that the pursuit of wealth is the ultimate goal of rationality, when the reason for doing so would be based on human opinions that are aggregately inconsistent?

Similiarly, over time, scientific fact and human feelings diverge. To use the example of human rights again, such 'absolutes' are actually modern phenomena. Meanwhile, facts such as the flatness of the world, the centrality of the Earth in the universe, the perfect circularity of the orbits of perfect spherical orbs, have been refuted and replaced by new 'facts'. How can we say that our current beliefs are somehow sacrosanct? All that we can say is what we infer from experience: and experience dictates that we currently hold to be true will also be refuted.

What is the answer to this diarrhea of truth? Man's wisdom will only get so far. Is it that we have currently reached an 'apex' of truth, as every generation false believes? No. Mankind cannot reach truth by itself, and as soon as it rejected 'religion' in either its sentiments or logical structures, it rejected truth - not because religion is truth, but because it flushed the baby with the bath water. By all means reject religious structures, but only for the reason that they are as man-made, and therefore as flawed, as any other earthly system. But do not reject God, for in Him, all things hold together.

There is God, and He is truth. Nobody reaches that truth without going through Christ. All other roads lead to destruction.

Re: Rationality Versus Feeling

PS: In a recent discussion with a friend, we mused that there were two types of Christian: the 'happy clappers' (i.e. those who disproportionately stress the Holy Spirit above biblical teaching) and the 'Bible nerds' (i.e. those who disproportionately stress analytical rigour over the Holy Spirit). Why this needless division? To either prioritise the good feeling that the Holy Spirit imparts, or the logical stability that the Bible confers, is to focus on earthly wisdom and desire.

These two ways of living can be reconciled if the Word of God is both the inspiration for divine knowledge and the source of holy sentiment. Consider tongues. In the Bible, the first example of tongues being spoken on a wide scale occured at Pentecost. Was this a random, feel-good orgy of mumbo jumbo, as is sometimes the case at modern processions where tongues are spoken? No. Tongues were used for a specific purpose, which was so that the diversity of languages present at the meeting could all understand Peter's sermon. Paul in his letters outlines very specific guidelines for the instrumentalisation of tongues, as a gift to be used in order to communicate God's wisdom to the masses, and not simply as a means of getting one's 'Holy Spirit fix' in some hypnotic and incomprehensible high.

Similiarly, Jesus tells us that Love fulfills the law. So what is the point of academic rigour, even of God's word, if we are unable to live lives of Love? For this reason Paul tells the Church (see scriptural appendix) that he communicates to them through his actions, and intentionally avoids intellectual constructions, so that they can see the Word for what it really is - not a logical curiousum, but the ultimate reality.

John 6:63: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." Emotions without the Spirit will die with the flesh; logic without the Spirit will lead to dead-end conclusions.

Re: Rationality Versus Feeling - Relevant Literature

Ecclesiastes:

And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realized that this also is striving after wind. Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain. So I turned to consider wisdom, madness and folly; for what will the man do who will come after the king except what has already been done? And I saw that wisdom excels folly as light excels darkness. The wise man's eyes are in his head, but the fool walks in darkness And yet I know that one fate befalls them both. Then I said to myself, "As is the fate of the fool, it will also befall me Why then have I been extremely wise?" So I said to myself, "This too is vanity." For there is no lasting remembrance of the wise man as with the fool, inasmuch as in the coming days all will be forgotten And how the wise man and the fool alike die! So I hated life, for the work which had been done under the sun was grievous to me; because everything is futility and striving after wind.


James:

But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him...Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.
Galations:

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these...those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.


Romans:

For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.


1 Corinthians:

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption...And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God...my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.


Proverbs 2:
1My son, if you will receive my words
And treasure my commandments within you,
2Make your ear attentive to wisdom,
Incline your heart to understanding;
3For if you cry for discernment,
Lift your voice for understanding;
4If you seek her as silver
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
5Then you will discern the fear of the LORD
And discover the knowledge of God.
For the LORD gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
7He stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
He is a shield to those who walk in integrity,
8Guarding the paths of justice,
And He preserves the way of His godly ones.
9Then you will discern righteousness and justice
And equity and every good course.
10For wisdom will enter your heart
And knowledge will be pleasant to your soul;
11Discretion will guard you,
Understanding will watch over you,
12To deliver you from the way of evil,
From the man who speaks perverse things;
13From those who leave the paths of uprightness
To walk in the ways of darkness;
14Who delight in doing evil
And rejoice in the perversity of evil;
15Whose paths are crooked,
And who are devious in their ways;
16To deliver you from the strange woman [often a metaphor for earthly wisdom],
From the adulteress who flatters with her words;
17That leaves the companion of her youth
And forgets the covenant of her God;
18For her house sinks down to death
And her tracks lead to the dead;
19None who go to her return again,
Nor do they reach the paths of life.
20So you will walk in the way of good men
And keep to the paths of the righteous.
21For the upright will live in the land
And the blameless will remain in it;
22But the wicked will be cut off from the land
And the treacherous will be uprooted from it.

Rationality Versus Feeling: A False Dichotomy

Personality tests often draw an absolute distinction between ‘feelers’ and ‘thinkers’, respectively relying on sentiment and logic to make decisions. This dichotomy pervades our perceptions of people, and indeed, of truth. We would like to think that what is logical and what feels good coalesce, but alas, this is seldom the case: think of addictions that are satisfying but are irrational, or medicine that is logical but is uncomfortable. This blog argues that this is a false dichotomy, if we accept that truth is from God.

People label themselves and others as either logical or as instinctive. However, even with regard to earthly matters, is this really a valid division? It is possible to construct logical arguments around any earthly desire, even to the point of self-deception. Conversely, logic often satisfies a human desire for self-sufficiency. Consciously or subconsciously, we are often selective in what we choose to factor into our logical analyses (the criteria based on our desires), or on what we choose to identify as our true reason for doing something. In social science, ‘retrospective inconsistency’ involves a survey respondent giving contradictory responses to the same question at different points in time. For example, a citizen may cite peer pressure as their motivation to vote immediately proceeding their action, but a decade later will invent (consciously or not) an impetus of social responsibility. Logic and desires are not completely distinct, and moreover, they can be mutually reinforcing.

This combination is often employed to satisfy the actions of the self, without recourse to external input. However, Ecclesiastes tells us that earthly wisdom leads only to grief. Moreover, Proverbs talks of the seduction of earthly wisdom in the guise of a female adultress, whose trail leads to death (see posts on Sheol). Moreover, we see from the story of Nebuchannezar whose disobedience led to a loss of wisdom, and similiarly from Adam and Eve, that human desires, because they are also subjected to the Divine Law, in fact diminish even earthly wisdom. The first point, therefore, is that we pursue earthly wisdom and desires rather than Godly wisdom and Godly desires, and this is an unsustainable position with an inaccessible goal, because anything good on Earth is only a shadow of greater things Above. The metaphor of a shadow is useful: not only it is a mere representation of something more real, more multi-dimensional and more vibrant, it is an epi-phenomena of that something: it is intrinsically dependent on its source, and cannot in itself be captured.

But even if we could have all the things of the world, what good would it be if we forfeited our soul? And this is the second point: by pursuing earthly objects, not only will we most likely burn out before obtaining those objects, but we also forego those greater things from Above. Both wisdom and desire are discussed at length in the Bible. The distinction, however, is not between what is rational and irrational, but rather, what is earthly and what is Divine. With regard to desires, we are told to ‘delight ourselves in the Lord’ by the Psalmist and elsewhere by the Apostle Paul not to yield to ‘earthly desires’. With regard to wisdom, we are warned by Solomon in Ecclesiastes that the wisdom of man is ‘meaningless’ and ‘striving after wind’, and that by Paul, Peter and James that we have ‘the mind of Christ’, a kind of ‘secret knowledge’ of the mysteries of existence that is imparted to us by God. See forthcoming appendix for relevant scriptures relating to each case. In much of the highlighted passages, earthly wisdom/desires are in direct conflict with heavenly wisdom/desires, even to the point where James calls earthly wisdom 'demonic' and Paul makes claims of having a dual personality!

A common criticism often levelled at Christianity is the following conundrum: if God is both omnipotent and all-loving, why does evil happen? I would propose that the secret is in the meaning of ‘love’ – it involves both choice, which inevitably can have negative consequences when the wrong choice is made, and discipline, which will often have uncomfortable ramifications in the short-run. Human aspirations often seek to avoid discomfort, and rational calculations are made to this end. But the amount of times that I have heard people say “if I hadn’t have been through that experience, I wouldn’t be who I am today”, or similar, convinces me that part of the Christian walk is to surrender those intuitions to Him. Indeeed, see scriptural appendix for Paul's take on living with 'the mind of Christ': sacrificing our humanity for the sake of something greater.

If we accept that God is omniscient and all-loving, then really it is rational to allow him to take the reigns. If this means communication through ‘feelings’ or ‘intuitions’, then certainly it is rational to consider those messages, even if they contradict our earthly wisdom. Proverbs, conversely, teaches us some basic ways to apply our God-given rationality. Hence, both rationality and the 'sixth sense' are gifts from God, and as we are created in His image, they are fundamental components of our existence. However, because of sin, these mechanisms can be corrupted. The human brain is capable of greater capacity and deeper thought; indeed, human beings only employ a fraction of their cerebrum at any given time. Conversely, the seemingly supernatural and prophetic perceptions of those who are stripped of other senses (such as blind people) show that human intuition is also a largely untapped resource. Sin has imposed limitations on our human capabilities, and part of the Christian life is allow God to do what we cannot. What God desires of us is always what is best for us, whether or not we know it at the time. Therefore, we cannot evaluate his plans based on logic, because our information is limited, or on feelings, because our desires are tainted.

The arbitrariness of our logic and our feelings can easily find root in our sinful nature, as Paul's shizophrenia explicitly reveals; much better that we choose to anchor it on God’s heavenly authority. I would say that from experience, yielding to God’s plan, whilst frustratingly irrational at the time, will be retrospectively the optimal path, even to attain our earthly desires. Ironically, therefore, even a selfish, rational individual would best achieve their aim through their system of logic by yielding to God's plan. So even earthly systems are subjected to God's authority: "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17).

I am inclined to write “a balance must be struck”, but this would obviously contradict my argument – there is no balance, because there is no distinction. If there is a balance, it is intrinsically contained in God's Divine Being. Arisotlean 'Ethics' that attempt to arbitrate a human balance between extremes will always fall short for this reason: they take as granted that there are two extremes in the first place. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: the Word was with God in the beginning. PURSUE GOD, AND THE REST WILL FOLLOW. Interestingly, the word ‘logos’, hear meaning word, is the root our word ‘logic’. The Hebrews saw God as a mysterious force to be accessed by ritual and emotion. The Greeks, however, saw God as the ultimate rational force, the possessor of divine knowledge based on perfect and timeless information. In the Word of God, the two coexist and even complement each other. For this reason, when a Christian says ‘I have a word from God’, what they mean is that God has imparted a piece of divine knowledge to them, that is infinitely rational, perhaps through an emotional stimulus. 'Words', as we know them, occupy either space (if they are written), or time (if they are spoken). But God is timeless and omnipresent, and so His Word is clearly above our earthly laws.

If you find yourself in a maze, it would be convenient to have direction from somebody with a top-down view of the situation, who could guide you to the exit; especially one who loves you and wishes you to be free. Without this direction, it may seem rational simply to follow your compass (a 'moral compass', perhaps?). This strategy, however, would lead to a dead-end. The friend looking down may advise that you back-track in order to conjoin the appropriate path. This seems irrational, based on your own desire to go in a certain direction, but at the same time, you know that it is rational on a 'higher level' because it is actually more conducive to the fulfillment of what your real desire is - to get out of the maze. Earthly wisdom and desires lead us further into the maze (see my posts on 'Sheol' to see how the lure of earthly wisdom and earthly desires lead to sup-optimal existence, which interesingly, often takes the visual form of an inescapable labyrinth).


I would posit that in the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve walked with God, what was desirable and what was rational were one and the same, because the Law of Love reigned supreme. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Through Christ, we can return to this state by living with the Holy Spirit (see relevant literature).
However, we will also suffer from Paul's internal tension between flesh and spirit. The key to Christian maturity is to distinguish between the two at every decision point, and crucially, to act accordingly. Often, our desires will deceive us, and we can use our biblical analysis to refute those desires, as Jesus did when He was tempted in the desert. At other times, what will seem rational will not coalesce with what we feel to be right; biblical examples abound, such as Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his son Isaac, or Jonah feeling led to travel to Nineveh. And crucially, notice the inevitability of the final outcome: Abraham's obedience was rewarded, and Isaac was spared. Jonah ended up in Nineveh whether he liked it or not, but because of his initial disobedience, had to undergo a period of correction in the belly of a whale. This is another Sheol, and comparable to that period of 40 years when the Isralites had to wander in the desert for 40 years, after rationally calculating, on the basis of the sentiment of fear, that they could not defeat the inhabitants of the Promised Land, contrary to God's direction. And yet, ultimately God's promise remained. It is better to seize the promise as soon as possible, and to concomittantly obey his instruction immediately, for although God will not revoke it, the discipline and regret that accompany the 'second chance' are not worthwhile. It is the equivalent of taking a 'sunken hit' on an investment opportunity - nothing is gained, but something is lost. Although at the time, taking the leap of faith seems uncertain, it is actually far more secured than the uncertainty that accompanies the chaos that exists without God's divine order (see posts on 'Divine Order').

Seek first His kingdom, and we will find that we are acting both rationally and in accordance with what we desire. If, however, we take those earthly gifts to be the object of our efforts, then we will be dissatisfied. Not only do we place the wrong target in our sights, but we pursue those desires in irrational ways, if left to our own devices. Our own devices are limited; those of God are not.

Re: Walls, Cornerstones and Foundations

Three related points.

First, examine Psalm 118:22:

"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief corner stone."

This is a messianic prophecy. So it is interesting to note that even within our walls, our rejection of Jesus is pretty much futile. He is victorious regardless of our stance (which side of the wall we are on).

Second, examine Joshua 6:26:

"Cursed before the LORD is the man who rises up and builds this city Jericho; with the loss of his firstborn he shall lay its foundation, and with the loss of his youngest son he shall set up its gates."

We can elude his grace (why would we want to), but in doing so, we subject ourselves to the wrath of the father.

Third, examine Proverbs 25:28:

"Like a city that is broken into and without walls Is a man who has no control over his spirit."

This verse tells us that the idea of stones and walls is pertinent on a personal level. Strongholds come tumbling down, but these fortresses are often within us. Moreover, it is only when Christians "take the land" in themselves that the Church can "take the land" in our world.

Walls, Cornerstones and Foundations

Another thing about walls. In my last post(s), I described how our delineation of boundaries (and the concomittant construction of barriers such as walls) demarcate our moral commitments; in essence, when we build a wall, we are forced to consider and announce its purpose. The purpose of a wall is to include and embrace certain forces or aspects, and conversely to exclude and repudiate others. So when we build a wall, we are making a claim as to who we serve, and by what law we direct our actions.

I would further posit that the importance of the 'cornerstone' in scripture is symbolic of this decision. What do we place as our cornerstone of our walls? And similiarly, what do we select as the keystone of our gateways? Examine Isaiah 28:

15 You boast, "We have entered into a covenant with death,
with the grave [b] we have made an agreement.
When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
it cannot touch us,
for we have made a lie our refuge
and falsehood [c] our hiding place."

16 So this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who trusts will never be dismayed.

17 I will make justice the measuring line
and righteousness the plumb line;
hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie,
and water will overflow your hiding place.

18 Your covenant with death will be annulled;
your agreement with the grave will not stand.
When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
you will be beaten down by it.

19 As often as it comes it will carry you away;
morning after morning, by day and by night,
it will sweep through."


Notice how God decrees that by laying Christ as the cornerstone of the New Jerusalem, justice and righteousness are built into the foundations (verse 17) and nothing can stand in the way of those principles: the city must conform to its foundations.

What are the implications for us, now that Christ is the cornerstone? Examine 1 Peter 2:

4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."[a] 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,[b]"[c] 8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."[d] They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

11Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. 12Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.


This relates intimately with my posts on Priesthood. Once we have accepted Christ as the cornstone of our lives, we receive His blessing but are also bound by His laws. The stone does not move - the choice that we face is whether to hide behind the stone, or trip over it.

Notice that the novelty of Christ is that He is the cornstone WITHIN us - not simply in a geographical location or a racial group. That is why we live "among Pagans" and "as aliens" - because we are scattered everywhere! His Holy Spirit is just that - it is a spirit, which can be in many places at once. We each carry around our own "Ark of the Covenant", and each reside in our own "Temple". How? Because our Kingdom is not of this world.

I leave you with a few passages from Revelation 21, pertaining to the New Jerusalem that are relevant to this discussion:

18The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. 19The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone...22I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Re: Re: Jubilee

Pertinent verses relating to Jubilee:

The Parable of The Widow's Oil in 2 Kings 4: because of the faith of the widow, Elisha uses his (priestly) authority to in effect cancel her debt. Her creditor had come to take compensation for her failure to repay (the collateral at this time being one's children; notice the parallel to God sending his Son as payment for our sins). God provides just enough oil for her to sell in order to recompense the creditor. This is also a good lesson in being resourceful.

Proberbs 13:13: The one who despises the word will be in debt to it, But the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded.

Colossians 2: having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him...If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees...

Finally, although not directly relevant, notice the contrasting fates of Babylon and the New Jerusalem in Revelation. Babylon, whose wealth was built on slavery (debt is a form of slavery, arguably), leads to destruction. New Jerusalem is founded on forgiveness of wrongdoings, and so lasts forever. Notice also that the inhabitants of Babylon temporarily enjoy a 'boom', and end up with a 'bust'. In the New Jerusalem, it is not objects that carry value; the city itself is constructed of all sorts of precious minerals. Seeking this kingdom will inevitably bring prosperity, because it is founded on solid foundations.

Re: Jubilee

Two afterthoughts:

A) "The city" of London and "Wall Street" - cities and walls. The locations most adversely affected by the financial crisis due to their adoption of earthly (selfish) laws based on greed, rather than following Nehemiah's example of instituting God's law (mercy) based on love.

B) The "Jubilee Movement" (made famous by Bono and LiveAid, and the Gleneagles G8 Summit along with the 'Make Poverty History' campaign) was criticised for playing into the hands of corrupt bureacrats and evil autocrats who would be forgiven (and by implication, rewarded), for decimating the economies of their countries. But according to the Jubilee idea, the reaction would be one of reciprocation rather than relapse.

Jubilee: Forgiveness, Reaping and Sowing, and Walls

The world economy is an a mess. This indisputable reality, most would argue, is the result of mismanagement of excessive debt, both on the part of creditor and debtor. An inordinately complex web of credit, equity, risk, and an incalculable cornucopia of other factors evolved (or devolved) into an unsustainable bubble. At the end of the chain, attempts to circumvent the basic reality of debt (that borrowed money must be repaid, and therefore the returns to any leveraged investment must outweigh the cumulative interest) by both borrowers and lenders, along with financial alchemy (the creation of sophisticated instruments purported to 'eliminate risk') were supported by sub-prime mortgages. Whether or not banks knew that people with no income would be unable to repay such loans (it has been revealed that many did), the incentive structure based on immediate returns and bonuses inevitably led to the proliferation of mortgage-backed securities. Although these securities were practically worthless (they were probably so risky that repayment was probably less likely than default, given the credit-card culture in consumerist society), by bundling them together with other obligations, their value was concealed (I would term this 'smuggling': compare it to similar methods of transporting drugs or weapons that bypass security checks). They were then sold off all around the world to private investors, sovereign wealth funds, and the like. A spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down.

Wealth seemed to be created at every stage: a borrower could own a house (with a price that was erroneously believed to rise invariably), a creditor could sell the debt, and the purchasers could count on future repayment. The missing link, of course, was the repayment. The price of the collateral (the mortgaged house) was the exact same asset that was purchased using the borrowed money. If this price of the asset were to fall, a slew of defaults would ensue, crashing the market, and thus destroying collateral. This is what Ben Bernanke has termed 'financial fragility'; I would call it 'building your house on sand'. Because of the entanglement of indebtedness, when this did occur it sparked a chain reaction that brought down the entire financial system, causing mass unemployment, bank failure, and even sovereign default. The ramifications are still being felt today, with the more 'developed' countries now in urgent need of rescue.

What does the Bible say about debt? The Old Testament is replete with directives for handling debt. One of these is found in Leviticus 25, which sanctions a Jubilee Year, calculated as “seven Sabbaths of years” - that is, every 49 years. All transactions, values, and debts are firmly based around this year, at which point “everybody is to return to his property” and all debts are to be forgiven. To me, this recalibration (return to fundamental values - “eat only what is taken directly from the fields”) represents a useful solution to prevent the kind of bubble inflation that has caused the financial crisis. This passage also teaches against the type of financial alchemy recently witnessed, both by commanding a return to fundamentals and a merciful consideration of others, especially the poor.

If we act responsibly, mercifully, and faithfully, God will rewards us, according to the passage, with more prosperity than if we act selfishly. This is classic example of 'you reap what you sow', similar to the directive not to store up the Manna but rather to trust God's provision. The reason is that “the land is [God's]”: selling it, let alone backing debt on it, assumes a type of human ownership that is fundamentally meaningless. It is, to say the least, “striving after wind”, and the notion of 'sovereignty' seems absurd as it pertains to human institutions. Notice, however, that in the passage, God draws a distinction between houses that are enclosed within a “walled city” and those in “open country”. Within cities, the Jubilee does not apply, whereas those outside are bound by the “redemption of the land”.

This leads me to Nehemiah. A previous post detailed the kind of covenants made after the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the forgiveness of all debt. Notice that this occurred immediately after the walls had been built. The connection, I propose, is that walls serve a purpose: to delineate territory, inside which a certain law dominates. Nehemiah understood this, and so immediately injected the Wall with God's law, and ensured that the people would continually recourse to those directives. He therefore opened the Gates to the Jubilee. I think it is also pertinent here that when Jesus entered Jerusalem, he did so through a Gate, and this very fact is explicitly documented as if it had some special meaning. Moreover, when He returns, Revelation tells us that He will again come through a Gate.

What is the consequence if we establish our own law within our city, not based on God's law but rather on our own selfish desires? Study Matthew 18. A King is owed an unpayable debt by one of his slaves, and decides to annul the repayment. However, the unmerciful servant then harasses and imprisons one of his own debtors. The result is blunt: the King overturns his original decision, and sends the servant to the torturers until the debt can be repaid (by implication, for eternity).

As individuals we are morally in the same position as the servant. We owe an eternal debt to Jesus, through the cross. Jesus points out that the greater the debt forgiven, the great the love produced (by asking a hypothetical question to one of his disciples). So that is one option – we forgive our debtors, and God forgives our own debts, and the result is love. On the contrary, if we are unmerciful, Jesus says that “My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.” For this reason, Paul tell us to “let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.” This is a perfect example of the Law of Love (see an earlier post). Our debt to Christ is eternal; therefore, the fact that we are forgiven that debt should lead to eternal love. If, however, we do not accept our position in the 'forgiveness chain', we are judged by our own actions, and that eternal debt will be repaid (for eternity, no doubt).

It is telling that some versions of the Lord's prayer read “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors”, rather than “trespass” and “those who trespass against us”, respectively. I think that this article has also made an interesting connection between the (seemingly disjointed) elements of that very prayer - “give us this day our daily bread”, and “your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”. This things all go together: forgiveness, prosperity, and God's Law.

Now, back to the economy. A similar 'chain' of debt can be found (but perhaps its end is still not in sight). In short, by buying mortgage-backed securities, China as a massive surplus nation lent money to American banks, who in turn lent money to consumers (who in turn bought Chinese-made products). On a separate level, what of the 'debt' of developing countries in Latin America and Africa owed to the developed world? The problem of aid is that it creates perverse incentives: adverse selection (it rewards failure through allocation to poor countries, which are usually poor because of bad governance) and moral hazard (there are no consequences for those who accept the aid if it is not repaid). Others argue that the problem with aid is that is has been accompanied by stringent conditions, which do more harm than good; what is indisputable is that those conditions are certainly painful, as even the creditors are finding now in their choice between austerity (e.g. Britain's 'emergency budget') and default (Greece?), both of which are unpopular and in their own ways weigh down economic recovery (unemployment in the former, currency collapse in the latter). I would propose that maybe there is a connection to the way that we have handled debt to us, and the consequences of our own debt (by 'our', I refer to the developed world). It is telling that the largest debtor nations are no longer 'underdeveloped' countries, but rather those previously in a position to forgive debt. If they had done so, maybe they would have returned to Jubilee, creating a type of 'international social capital' that would correct those perverse incentives (I.e. Love). Mercy would have brought prosperity.

This is speculation, but is seems consistent with the evidence (I.e. the Bible). Notice that these principles apply on every level, micro, macro, and meta: a bond is a bond, after all (interestingly, this term derives from slavery). Seek first his Kingdom and His righteousness, and all this things will be added to you as well. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? The answer seems to be that he ends up forfeiting the world as well.

Re: The Calling of the Saint

Relevant passage for the last post: Matthew 7

21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

Scary stuff. According to this passage, we can prophesy, cast out demons, and perform miracles, and yet not truly serve God. We can receive authority, and misuse it: we can fail to fulfill our prieslty annointing.

It is indispensable, therefore, that we commit wholeheartedly to Christ, rather than dither, to be spiritually infantile or even dead, or to be lukewarm, for these are abominable in His sight. We know that He spits such people out of his mouth.

From Ecclesiastes: When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow.

The Calling of a Saint

If you have ever read Hebrews, you know that through Christ, we are all priests, because we have a High Priest who became one of us, so that we might have direct access to God, the Holy of Holies, unveiled, undefiled, and previously, untrammelled by anyone other than the High Priest, once a year. We no longer require an intermediary; we do no longer look at shadows cast by the light, but rather, we are able to stare directly into the light. Through Jesus, we are all saints in Christ: no longer must we be of an elect group or tribe (the Levites), or race (the Hebrews). However, if you have ever read Leviticus, you will know that the calling of a Priest is no easy ride. If we are truly to be agents of Christ on earth ('the righteousness of God') we must conduct ourselves accordingly.

Paul tells us that we will one day judge even the angels – what a calling! Indeed, Jesus gives his disciples dominion over all types of evil, to cast out demons and perform wonders in His name. Moreover, he commands them to employ this novel authority, by going out to all the nations and making disciples of all people. But we also know that we must remove the log out of our own eye before we can see clearly enough (or indeed have the moral authority) to perform surgery on somebody else's for the sake of removing a speck. Indeed, Jesus would recommend removing the eye if it causes us to sin: vision would be clearer with only one eye! Paul also tells us that we are given the Mind of Christ. But we also know from Ecclesiastes that with much wisdom comes much grief!

We have been given a great privilege, and also a great responsibility. Examine the following passage from Luke: “As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village.” On a separate occasion, Christ commands Peter to “get behind Me, Satan!” What was wrong with the disciples? What were they doing wrong?

To be a saint, to live out our priestly calling, is to deny the self. To put on the robe of righteousness is to be pure in God's eyes. By definition, as the world has not understood the light, because it is in darkness, that means humbling ourselves through the lens of the world. That includes our own pretensions of grandeur. The robe is indeed spectacular: the chest-plate that the High Priest wore was embellished with all manner of precious minerals. But three points are noted. First, how brilliant is a stone without light? Our glory must be purely a reflection of the only source of true light, that is, Christ. As vessels, we convey light; we do not conduct it. Second, how brilliant is a stone to blind man? If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we are living among the spiritually blind, then we will not be praised for taking on this holy role. Third, how heavy is the chest-plate? It is burdensome, and will weigh us down at times. It requires purity, which given our human conditions, requires purification.

Indeed, purification is a fundamental practice of the Priest. To deny our selves, and to allow Christ within us to take the reigns, we must expel those sinful elements that would threaten the transmission of will. For me, this is a very personal matter; for the High Priest, it involved all manner of rigid ritual. I think that we can take a lesson from such discipline: purification must be regular, and importantly, it will not always be what we want – indeed, given its purpose, it is most likely the exact opposite of what we want at the time! It is here that I respect the apparent inflexibility of Catholicism and Orthodoxy (along with Judaism, Islam, and most other religions!). If we are pure of heart, we can indeed do whatever we want – because what we want will be what God wants. The key, however, is that in such a scenario, one is already pure. We must first become holy, before we can enter into the Holy of Holies.

Purification is painful, involving the type of heat, chiselling and re-shaping that is required of the precious metals that adorn our robes. Christ died for us: the only One who had no sin became sin, so that through Him, we might become the righteousness of God. Heaven is a free gift. But Paul tells the Church that the spiritual walk is one of growth and maturity. If we are to reside with God, we must resist ourselves with self-control. If we are to dwell in the Shelter of the Most High, to abide in the Shadow of the Almighty, we must first allow Him to change us in such a way as to be presentable.

We cannot show up to the wedding unprepared. It is impossible to show up uninvited, for all are welcome – that is the freedom of the gift. But it is possible to show up without adequate preparation. We must continually ensure that we have enough oil for our candles. The supply is infinite, but our apparatuses require constant refilling. “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

His yoke is easy, and His burden is light, but only if we allow Him to help us carry that cross daily. Indeed, the very definition, in my opinion, of carrying our cross daily is to let Him carry it. That is the hardest part of self-denial, and the ultimate goal of self-control! If non-Christians are guilty of leaving the cross behind them, we Christians are often guilty of trying to do all the work ourselves!

One final point about holiness. Why is that Jesus tells his disciples that they should be “like children” if they want to enter the Kingdom of God? I would posit that children are 'unpolluted'; they have not yet accumulated the need for purification (although of course, inherently, everybody must be cleansed). It is often the simple things that drive faith. Solomon finds that all of his earthly endeavours, his elaborate adventures, his extravagant pleasures, and his sophisticated knowledge, all led to nothing: worse, they led him to “hate his labour” and to “despise his life”. There is a secret knowledge, an infinite mystery, that is God the father. The Orthodox branch of Christianity has captured this commendably in their mystic practices of worship and study. However, the fundamental truth, the basic tenant of our existence, survival, and calling, is one of love. To understand love is to be human. And the truth of love exists in action. Love has no greater truth than for one to sacrifice himself for a friend. The priestly calling is one of constant maturity, but to purify oneself is to return to our maker, and our making. Though we are his ambassadors, we are also his children.

Linking the Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Prodigal Son

It would seem natural, indeed predictable, for two of Christ’s parables to share some common threads. Having heard a sermon on the Parable of the Prodigal Son, which insightfully focused on the elder son rather than the “lost son” (indeed, they are both lost in the story, but only one is found), I was reminded very much of the Parable of the Talents. I will deal with each separately, and then attempt to coalesce their messages around a common conclusion.

In modern society, our natural inclination (largely a product of ‘nurture’ rather than ‘nature’ per se, but disputably related to both) is for one of ‘social equality’. It is often debated whether fairness in society entails equality of endowments, income, or opportunities, corresponding to communist, socialist and liberal outlooks respectively. For adherents of any of these schools, the message of the Parable of the Talents is therefore surprising, and certainly uncomfortable: ‘For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.’ This certainly does not conform to our ‘Robin Hood’ sentiments of social justice.

Conversely, the modern version of social justice also includes punishment. Although the justice system exists to protect the innocent and to rehabilitate the guilty, its own philosophical justification rests on the moral correctness of social reprimand. We feel that it is right for wrong-doers to be punished. Schools of thoughts disagree about the extent and manner of punishment, the most extreme advocating the death penalty and the most liberal espousing a sort of community rehabilitation. For anybody in today’s society, then, the Parable of the Prodigal Son is bewildering. How can the profligate son receive such unmerited grace? And how can the elder son, who has worked his entire life, remain overshadowed by the return of his younger sibling?

Juxtaposing these parables is informative. We have situations whereby: man is rewarded for stewardship and punished for profligacy, and one in which man is forgiven for a similar type of profligacy. In both stories, the master/father figure endows a slave/son with resources, which are then either multiplied or squandered. And yet the morality conveyed seems to be contradictory.

I would propose a solution to the dilemma. Notice that in the Parable of the Talents, the master returns to the slaves, whereas the Prodigal Son returns home. The man who squandered his one talent by burying it is unrepentant, and would probably prefer to bury himself as well, than for the master to return. The Son, on the other hand, is left with nothing – not even one talent. He is obligated to return. It is our reaction that determines our sentence, and this conforms to the idea that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. We are better off with nothing, as we are forced back to God, than to even have a small fraction of earthly treasure to which we pathetically cling.

Moreover, these two parables may be elucidating two separate aspects of our relationship with God. We are his slaves, but thanks to Christ, we are also his sons. In terms of slavery, we must pick up our cross daily to follow him. In terms of family, a father disciplines his son if he loves him. Finally, the surprising aspects of the second parable, that the son got let off the hook, is only so because we would expect something resembling the Talent story. I think this is a valid point: we deserve to have everything taken away, but we are shown grace. Grace is by definition receiving something that we don’t deserve: it cannot exist without a counterpart of punishment.

And so the two conclusions are not irreconcilable.

Re: Sheol

I came across this verse yesterday. I have never posted an entire Bible passage before, but I was awestruck at the similarity between this depiction of false wisdom and that which had come to me spontaneously.

Proverbs 9
Wisdom's Invitation
1Wisdom has built her house,
She has hewn out her seven pillars;
2She has prepared her food, she has mixed her wine;
She has also set her table;
3She has sent out her maidens, she calls
From the tops of the heights of the city:
4"Whoever is naive, let him turn in here!"
To him who lacks understanding she says,
5"Come, eat of my food
And drink of the wine I have mixed.
6"Forsake your folly and live,
And proceed in the way of understanding."
7He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself,
And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself.
8(N)Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you,
Reprove a wise man and he will love you.
9Give instruction to a wise man and he will be still wiser,
Teach a righteous man and he will increase his learning.
10The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
11For by me your days will be multiplied,
And years of life will be added to you.
12If you are wise, you are wise for yourself,
And if you scoff, you alone will bear it.
13The woman of folly is boisterous,
She is naive and knows nothing.
14She sits at the doorway of her house,
On a seat by the high places of the city,
15Calling to those who pass by,
Who are making their paths straight:
16"Whoever is naive, let him turn in here,"
And to him who lacks understanding she says,
17"Stolen water is sweet;
And bread eaten in secret is pleasant."
18But he does not know that the dead are there,
That her guests are in the depths of Sheol.

Sheol

Sheol is wilderness and exile: a place of silence that has no character or echo. It is a desert of aimless wandering, within which are pitched 'tents', usually referring to something sub-standard, as if the Blessing has not been accepted - the "dwelling of the wicked". Moreover, I Sheols are rooms or chambers a large complex of atrium. Somewhere in the building is God's throne room, the heart of the system, and these anti-chambers are somehow cut off from the blood supply – they lie on the 'wrong side of the veil', i.e. not in the Holy of Holies but outside of God's sanctuary. Sheol is a type of purgatory, or waiting room, maybe a type of purification as we wait for "God's smoke to fill the temple". In Sheol there is "Gnashing of Teeth" and also plagues of many sorts.

However, it is more complicated than merely a place of punishment. For me, there are two reasons why somebody would be in a Sheol. Although once you are in, you became entrapped as if in a whirlpool, there is also a false lure that keeps you there wittingly, which is also the pull factor that got you there in the first place. This is the idea of a snare – it lures you in with false promise, but does not reveal to you the burdensome conditions until you have already signed the contract. I don't know how this works for other people, but for me, the deepest desire of my heart is to have knowledge. Sheol then seems to offer a type of 'secret, exclusive knowledge' that will make me 'like God' (sound familiar?...Eden...) In reality, the knowledge in Sheol is nothing, counterfeit, and alchemy, and the result is destruction. Interestingly, the recent financial crisis was largely blamed on 'financial alchemy' – self-deception or risk elimination due to incomprehensibly complex instruments and formulae. The result is a prolonged period of readjustment.

Until this point, Africa has been in a Sheol, in that it has not had the ABILITY to develop: a 'bad equilibrium' or 'poverty trap' of no infrastructure, no investment and persistent poverty manifests itself in fertility, subsistence agriculture, corruption, conflict, etc. But I feel that opportunities now exist, not least Chinese investment and micro-finance. There is now no excuse: the door has been opened, and escape is in its grasp. Now it is a matter of attitude and willpower. Hopefully the lure of Sheol will not dominate: although we all feel the bite of sin (not completely, thank God), we still return to it, as a dog to its vomit. And the Word says that to return to the path of destruction after being delivered from it is worse than ever having been delivered.

The opposite of Sheol is Salem, i.e. Jerusalem, or for us, the New Jerusalem. Personally, I have escaped a very significant Sheol in my life, and now feel like I am in God's sanctuary: I have crossed the veil that was torn when Christ died and was raised. And to be honest, I feel that Sheol is the period of time in between Christ's death and his resurrection. Once we enter his dwelling place (the HOUSE of God rather than mere TENTS), we receive divine wisdom.

However, we also then bear the responsibility of Priesthood, as only the High Priests can enter the Holy of Holies. Part of our responsibility as priests is to help other people escape their own Sheols. To do this, we must bring the Light of Christ from the sanctuary, through ourselves, to the anti-chambers. We must unlock the doors, show people the way to the Promised Land. The rest is their choice. But the offshoot is that we must comport ourselves in a way that keeps us from Sheol (or else we will be the ones in need of deliverance). We must steer clear of Babylon, of Egypt; we must never falsely pine for our times in that horrible place, as the Hebrews did when the times got tough. Better is one day in the House of God than thousands elsewhere.

The other side of Sheol, apart from being this 'library' or 'encyclopedia' of false knowledge, is that it is also a false justice. God's house is a courtroom, and all things hang in perfect harmony and balance. For an economist, this represents 'perfect efficiency'. Any attempt to create perfect balance without God's revelation, like false knowledge, leads to destruction. This brings to mind Eudamonia, which Aristotle conceived as a man-made Utopia, reached by living a life of perfect ethical moderation. It was apparently based on the 'Golden ratio', which appears in nature and geometry ubiquitously. So the ideas of justice and knowledge are really one and the same.

I was wondering how Christians can enter this Sheol, which seems to be a lack of salvation. Mom suggested that it was because Sheol is a chamber of the sole, not the redeemed spirit. The sole can go astray and may need correction even when the Holy Spirit is present. In Paul's letters, he often tells his readers that they are 'dead' or 'asleep', and this is what I think he means. This connotes the idea of the seeds being scattered on three types of ground: the hard ground and the fertile ground have clear-cut consequences. But there is also this 'in-between' state, where growth happens but is constrained and strangled out.

Pre-Christ Judaism held that 'Abraham's Bosom' represented a comfortable exit from Sheol, which was a place of purification for the righteous and unrighteous alike. Thanks to God's grace, we are delivered from Sheol.

Re: Ethical Equivalence - no Ponzi Scheme

P.S.: The Ramsay Model also demands that there is no Ponzi-Scheme. This involves the artificial creation of value, through promising to pay somebody if they enlist several more people in the scheme. The promise never reaches fruition, and the person at the apex of the pyramid benefits from the contributions of everybody underneath him (everybody else is left with nothing).

God's Law is a Ponzi Scheme that works. Our utility does in part rely on sharing our investment with other people, and hoping that they will follow our example and sign up to the programme. However, the promise of payment is never rescinded. When Christ comes back, the scheme reaches its completion, and all those in it receive the payment of eternal life in Heaven.

Ethical Equivalence Through the Law of Love

Two strands of ethical thought exist, both within Christian theology and secular philosophy: deontological ethics, which values the adherence to moral codes, and consequentialism, which values the effect of actions rather than their intrinsic worth. The former is often associated with the likes of Kant, whilst the most famous variation of the latter is utilitaianism.

These two systems of thought are not, by definition, dichotomous. The divergence of an action's intrinsic goodness and its consequences only comes about when a moral law, when applied to a given situation, may yield less-than-best consequences. In reailty, such situations do in fact abound. The most frequently cited is the scenario of a person harbouring Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe, who is asked by a Nazi investigator whether or not she is in fact harbouring Jews. She is faced with a dilemma: if she adheres to her moral code, which stipulates that lying is wrong, she knowingly facilitates murder. Conversely, if she does her best to generate the optimal outcome, that is, to protect the Jews, she must break her moral code and lie.

Does our Christian code of values ever contradict itself in such a way? I will attempt to show that God's law is perfect, and is only contradictory when it is distorted; such distortion occurs through the selective incorporation of Godly principles into a human, sinful frame of reference.

I begin my argument with a premise: before sin, deontological and consequential ethics were identical. There was only one law: not to eat the forbidden fruit. To obey this law was both good in itself, because it conformed to God's commandments, but was also consequentially optimal, for it maintained a state of perfection. It was only after the fall that actions and consequences fell out of synchronisation.

God's law is still perfect, because God never solicits us to do evil. There can never be a situation in which God commands us to apply a certain principle that obligates us to break another. I argue that such contention only occurs when God's law is made subservient to a human system rather than master over it. In other words, God's law only works perfectly when it is held up as the highest authority. If this is indeed so, then if we ever face a situation such as that of the Jew-harbourer, we must appeal to God's supremity.

Such situations, however, are surely inevitable. Yes. But only because we live in a fallen world. The Law can never be upheld, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There is no one righteous, not even one. However, the penalty of sin was paid for not by its culprits, but by Jesus Christ. Through the crucifixion, a New Covenant, one of Love and Grace, superceded the condemnation that would have otherwise fallen on us. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

When we are presented with a conundrum between actions and consequences, we must invoke God's Law: one of grace, and one of love. For this reason, Love is the most important commandment - through it, the rest are fulfilled! If we live by love, we receive God's grace, and therefore the law is fulfilled through Christ's payment of sacrifice. There are often handy get-outs: for example, silence (a device used by Christ himself) can often allow us to avoid
both lying and revealing the truth. However, in general, if we are in harmony with his law, we will be within his divine authority.

In fact, all trade-offs, which are the essence of the economic problem, are the result of sin. Immediate pleasure versus long-term good. The basis of an investment decision. The crux of any collective action problem. The problem of free-riding. Carbon emissions and climate change. Fast food and obesity. Loans and debt. Idleness and unemployment. However, the former part of any trade-off - the immediate pleasure - is never bad in itself. Driving your car, eating a chocolate bar, taking out a loan, going on holiday - are all permissible in themselves. It is the balance that is important. I have blogged on this balance many times. Suffice it to say that when this balance is defiled, the consequences are deleterious. A prime example: we are commanded not to be idle, and yet also to take rest through the Sabbath.

The quest for the ideal balance leads us closer to God. In Heaven, to serve God is also the strategy that bears the most fruit, and indeed this mechanism is available to us on earth, so long as we live by Love and thereby receive Grace. Seek first his Kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you as well.

In economics, according to the Ramsey Macroeconomic Model, humans maximise their utility by smoothing out their consumption over time. However, because humans are selfish, they value present consumption over future consumption and so discount any future earnings. Because human beings are selfish, the imbalances above tend to favour immediate utility over long-term good.

Moreover, agents maximise their utility subject to the transversality condition, which says that time is finite. In other words, it makes no sense to perpetually save (and thereby sacrifice present consumption for future consumption), because eventually we die. Unless we have a massive binge on our death bed, all of the utility of our savings go down the drain unless we consume them eventually. It is important to remember that not only quantity matters: the longer you save, the more you gain, because even with a constant interest rate, the effect is
cumulative.

This applies to Christianity through the idea of sacrifice. In economics, human beings sacrifice, but only for the sake of future utility (in reality, this rational simplification does not hold, because people's actions are often governed psychologically, by emotions, which do not abide by such calculations). To follow the Law of Love, we must live in a state of continual surrender. By doing so, we reconcile deontological and consequential ethics. Why? Because we live forever. We have no transversality condition. By storing up treasures in Heaven, we in fact maximise our total, intertemporal utility, no matter how large our discount factor!

This introduces and interesting debate on 'hedonism', which I will not fully indulge, but will abbreviate. The question posed is the following: if we benefit from it is sacrifice, how can it indeed be sacrifice? My answer is that Sacrifice is God's commandment, and therefore will be rewarded. This is indeed a sign that we are living according to his commandments! In other words, the cost of sacrifice is the result of a fallen system, of which we are no longer bound, thanks to Christ. Our sacrifice, whilst involving earthly discomfort, should in fact delight us! We should revel in it, knowing that the tesing of our faith builds character. Through Christ, Paul learnt to be joyful in any situation, hungry or full, in prison or free. He loved those persecuted him, and he thanked God for putting him in jail. The key to happiness: Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart - which, not coincidentally, will inevitably be delight in the Lord.

Finally, in the Ramsey model, equilibrium can only be reached through a unique 'saddle path' of adjustment. Any digression from this path will lead to either of poverty trap that violates the Euler equation (if too much is consumed in any given period) or a disequlibrium that violates the transversality condition. This again relates to Christianity: the Bible tells us that few find the path to Christ, and moreover, that Christ is the only way to God. We cannot alter this rule. (NB: more on the 'Ponzi-scheme' condition as it applies to Christian evangelism at a different time)

We can see, then, why God's ultimate sacrifice allows us to have eternal life, and conversely, why the prospect of eternal life allows us to respond with a life is sacrifice. How's that for perfection.