Saturday, 24 October 2009
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Integrity
It is a common teaching in Christianity: to be 'in the world' but not 'of it'. As CS Lewis put it, we are 'soldiers behind enemy lines'. What does this mean? Obviously, we should not 'conform to the pattern of this world'. I do not wish to recapitulate all of the ramifications of such a commandment; rather, I intend to elucidate some of its implications for Christians who live within the institutions of the world, whether they be cities or companies.
My main point of reference is the book of Nehemiah. There are three aspects of this scripture which strike me, and to which I will refer in this analysis: 1) Nehemiah's favour with King Artaxerxes, 2) The rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, and the moral reformulation that this entailed, and 3) The marriage of work and faith.
Firstly, Nehemiah was given permission by a pagan King to rebuild the City. Moreover, he was granted the resources to do so, and even safe passage from his current location. This unprecedented, unanticipated and undeserved generosity was clearly the providence of God; in the same way that He hardened the heart of Pharaoh, so he softened that of Artaxerxes, so that his Will be done. As Christians living in secular institutions, let us never permit ourselves to believe, even subconsciously, that somehow human rules precede those of God (see my post on 'Divine Authority'). Every government, law or rule that exists has been approved by God, because He is ultimately authoritative, without exception. Furthermore, if any of these do not adhere to the Divine Law, they will soon become irrelevant and discarded.
Importantly, however, it was the short prayer of Nehemiah that did the trick. Immediately before requesting permission, he asked God for help. Therefore, if we do not appeal to that Divine Authority, we will not be granted a hearing. Any door can be opened, but we must first knock.
Secondly, the physical rebuilding of Jerusalem was accompanied by a concomitant, and necessary, philosophical overhaul. The foundational principles of the city were consciously overthrown, solidified in written creeds. Specifically, the selfish pursuit of wealth was replaced by a pure devotion to God, complete with sacrifice to both neighbour and God, thus embedding an ethos of love. As Christians living in cities, or companies, we must ensure that our own efforts are based on this foundation of service to Christ, rather than on the (often selfish) motives of the world around us.
In particular, debts of all sorts were forgiven. I quote:
3 Others were saying, "We are mortgaging our fields, our vineyards and our homes to get grain during the famine."
4 Still others were saying, "We have had to borrow money to pay the king's tax on our fields and vineyards. 5 Although we are of the same flesh and blood as our countrymen and though our sons are as good as theirs, yet we have to subject our sons and daughters to slavery. Some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but we are powerless, because our fields and our vineyards belong to others."
6 When I heard their outcry and these charges, I was very angry. 7 I pondered them in my mind and then accused the nobles and officials. I told them, "You are exacting usury from your own countrymen!" So I called together a large meeting to deal with them 8 and said: "As far as possible, we have bought back our Jewish brothers who were sold to the Gentiles. Now you are selling your brothers, only for them to be sold back to us!" They kept quiet, because they could find nothing to say.
9 So I continued, "What you are doing is not right. Shouldn't you walk in the fear of our God to avoid the reproach of our Gentile enemies? 10 I and my brothers and my men are also lending the people money and grain. But let the exacting of usury stop! 11 Give back to them immediately their fields, vineyards, olive groves and houses, and also the usury you are charging them—the hundredth part of the money, grain, new wine and oil."
12 "We will give it back," they said. "And we will not demand anything more from them. We will do as you say." Then I summoned the priests and made the nobles and officials take an oath to do what they had promised. 13 I also shook out the folds of my robe and said, "In this way may God shake out of his house and possessions every man who does not keep this promise. So may such a man be shaken out and emptied!" At this the whole assembly said, "Amen," and praised the LORD. And the people did as they had promised.
The denouncement of the institution of debt occurred because it had ceased to be of value to the residents of Jerusalem. Rather than fostering and facilitating development, the (sometimes literal, other times financial) shackles of debt had began to impede progress. As Christians, we must continually reassess our actions as they pertain to the world, with respect to God: do they still serve a Godly purpose, or have they been subsumed in custom, tradition – 'worldly patterns'? This is what it means to be 'transformed by the renewal of your minds'. Only in that way can we ascertain His Will for our lives, and what that means for how we behave towards the world around us.
The third aspect of Nehemiah to which I refer is the combination of work and faith, which I have already hit on. The residents of Jerusalem found that 'specialisation' was largely inefficient. At first, some constructed whilst others defended. They found, however, that these two tasks need not be separated. All tribes, occupations and families of Jerusalem undertook the task of rebuilding their city, bar none; and likewise, all residents acted as guardians, bar none. The people were said to carry 'a tool in one hand and a weapon in the other'. We must act accordingly; we must not put down our faith when we enter the workplace, and likewise, we must not put down our work when we leave the office. God must occupy our entirety, as the foundation of whatever we pursue.
A specific formulation for the process of rebuilding and reconciliation can be as follows (according to the sequence found in Nehemiah): a) Repentance – firstly Nehemiah, and then the City as a whole, audibly and communally admitted their sins; b) Commitment – especially of the leaders: "In view of all this, we are making a binding agreement, putting it in writing, and our leaders, our Levites and our priests are affixing their seals to it”, we must devote our futures to God; and c) Continual Renewal – according to Nehemiah, “Day after day, from the first day to the last, Ezra read from the Book of the Law of God. They celebrated the feast for seven days, and on the eighth day, in accordance with the regulation, there was an assembly”. God must be engrained into the very fabric of our institutions.
We are not of the world in which we live. To answer my first question, 'what does this mean?', I reply that it is our task to change the world to conform the pattern of God. That requires, however, that we first align our own lives accordingly, for it is primarily by example that changes are made, even radical ones.
To exemplify, I may apply my analysis to the City of London. For ages, the city has thrived on finance. The current crisis has exposed its faults, especially the way that an ethos of selfish gain manifested in excessive risk accumulation. Hence the passage in Nehemiah seems applicable: "Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire."
Those still working in the city therefore face a Herculean task, but are also confronted with a unique opportunity. To reform an immoral system when it has been destroyed, as Nehemiah found, is much easier than to change it when it is strong. It is our imperative, therefore, to ensure that what replaces this Hedge-Fund-driven economy is one that adheres to God's directives.
Even Jerusalem, within Nehemiah's lifetime, receded back into its sinful past, greatly displeasing Nehemiah. Written contracts, when underwritten by men, will never be truly binding. Each new generation faces a decision, but it is our responsibility as Christians to do what we can to ensure not only that we make the right decision, but also that future generations inherit a structure of integrity.
It is this word, 'integrity', that synchronises all the aspects of this discussion. Physical integrity takes the form of a solid wall to defend the city, or perhaps an efficient economic system. Moral integrity takes the form of imbuing that new structure with the principles that please God. As the crisis has shown, the two are ultimately synonymous, not dichotomous as is often presumed. Nehemiah knew this, which is why it so concerned him once the residents of Jerusalem reverted to their sinful ways. We are all accountable to God: prioritising material integrity at the cost of moral integrity will achieve neither, whereas seeking first His Kingdom and His Righteousness will ultimately yield the greatest rewards.
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
The Law of Love
The applications of love abound. The universal essentiality of the thing is incomprehensible; and yet, we must strive to comprehend it. For it is in this eternal pursuit that love increases. As we endeavour to grasp the existence of everlasting, unconditional love, we grow increasingly closer to the Heart of God. As He, being Love, reveals Himself to us, so we fall deeper in love with Him.
I begin by a simple outline of a common economic theory: that of ‘Supermarket Wages’. It is commonly recognised, indeed empirically supported, that paying workers the minimum wage possible is not, in fact, economic. If their reward only marginally outweighs the opportunity cost of work (i.e., leisure or alternative work), then they have little incentive to apply effort. Indeed, if workers are offered the minimum amount for them not to leave, why should they work any more than the minimum amount for them not to be fired?
The employer is then forced to monitor the worker’s behaviour to ensure that s/he does not ‘shirk’, or ‘skive’ when nobody is looking, thus incurring administrative costs. Economists agree that by paying workers a fixed premium (perhaps sweetened with performance-dependent perks), the company acts in its own interest; even if at first its staffing costs increase. Firstly, if the worker understands that the equivalent occupation in a competitor company will not pay as much, s/he will be incentivised to keep his/her job. Secondly, s/he will feel a sense of self-worth, and will hence be (even unconsciously) more motivated. Thirdly, if rewards depend on performance, the worker obviously acts in his/her own interest by working as hard as possible. Moreover, non-pecuniary rewards, such as prospects of promotion, will have the same affect.
In other words, you get what you pay for. If you rip off a worker, you get ripped off. Likewise, if you as a worker rip off your company, you’ll end up paying through low-wage employment, unemployment, or low self-esteem.
This is a simple example of the law of reciprocity (‘you reap what you sow’; see previous blogs). Interestingly, during the slave trade, many of its detractors argued in purely economic terms, regardless of its moral dimension. Whilst we often associate abolition movements with William Wilberforce, and the civil rights movement with Martin Luther King, there are those who agreed with the proposition of freedom simply out of self-interest.
To elucidate, apply the law of ‘Supermarket Wages’ to the idea of slavery. A slave works because s/he is compelled to do so. There is no alternative, no potential competing employer, and so the master sees no immediate reason to treat the slave with any manner of decency, or to reward his/her work. The slave works sufficiently so as not to receive a beating, and if the master is not gauging performance, will just as soon drop his/her sickle (or run away). Indeed, even some masters understood this law of reciprocity, and did in fact reward good behaviour in various ways, for instance through the prospect of ‘promotion’ to house-servant.
Hence, many abolitionists argued that the prospect of free labour would in fact be more economic. Not only would workers in poor nations flock to the prospect of paid work, all competing with each other and so attempting to outperform other workers, they would work harder once employed to keep their job. If you ‘do to others as you would have them do to you’, then – remarkably – they will do likewise.
Similarly, by repressing the potential of the black population, the United States denied itself a large part of its workforce and uncovered potential. Moreover, the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany, which gave reason for Jews to flee to other countries (such as the United States), contributed to the downfall of their enterprise. A relatively miniscule race in terms of quantity, the Jews have displayed remarkable quality, through academic and practical ingenuity, receiving more Nobel Prizes than any other two groups put together. Think of Openheimer. Einstein, for crying out loud. Hitler did indeed ‘sow the seeds of his own destruction’.
I would like now to return to the issue of slavery. During the Transatlantic Slave Trade, Christians were divided on the message of the Bible at is pertained to slavery. Whilst ‘godly’ individuals possessed many slaves, and Paul evidently condoning it in several of his letters, it seemed to contradict the basic principles of love, on which Christianity seemed to be based. Resultantly, many people (especially those who had stocks in slave-fuelled companies) argued that slavery was in keeping with their faith, whilst others disagreed.
Whilst both the moral argument (essentially, one of ‘Love’) and the economic argument (which was just as self-serving as slavery) both led to the same end (eventual abolition), it is the thought that counts, and the difference between selfishness and selflessness did not elude God’s Divine Order. What replaced slavery was a system of ‘indentured servants’, which was essentially slavery by another name.
So who was right? From our liberal paradigm, we would obviously condemn notions of forced labour, even without the backing of biblical directives. Strangely, however, most of those who publically reproached slavery on moral grounds were often those who held the biggest shares. Contradictions abound. Paul states that ‘there is neither slave nor free’ because ‘all are equal in Christ Jesus’.
I now refer to one of my first blogs, that on Divine Order and Divine Authority. We are to obey the governments in place, for any Earthly Authority is subject to Divine Authority. Slavery clearly is not part of the ‘Divine Order’. For this reason, it has never lasted as an institution. It emerges, but eventually the bubble bursts. Whether we are subjected to humans or not, it makes no difference: for we are all subjected to the authority of God.
Moreover, we are all forgiven by the Grace of Christ. Earthly dependencies have no bearing, and so are irrelevant. Jesus didn’t free the Jews from Roman bondage; rather, He gave them a means to transcend it, and enter into a new Kingdom. Any empire is fated to self-destruction (I need not invoke historical examples, for they are apparent; indeed, see blog on ‘Nation-Building’) because it is fundamentally a self-serving enterprise, and so will reap what it sows. God hates slavery; that much is undeniable. To punish the abasement of such an institution, all He has to do is stand back and let his Divine Order do its thing.
Interestingly, many of our abolitionist ‘heroes’ such as Wilberforce were not in fact advocating the immediate freedom of slaves: distinguish between abolition and emancipation, the former being the banning of the slave trade, the latter being the banning of slavery as an institution. In other words, many abolitionists proposed ‘amelioration’, whereby existing slaves would have their conditions improved, as they were not fit to face the vagaries of the ‘real world’ such as labour market competition and self-sufficiency.
We must ensure that we do not fall into the same trap of arrogance. When we as Western nations lend money to ‘those poor Africans’, are we simply re-entering into colonial systems, thereby taking up the mantle of our imperial ancestors? If so, caution is recommended, for this will not escape the vigilance of God. Are we acting out of self-interest, fulfilling what Bill Easterly calls ‘the White Man’s Burden’: a moral conviction that does not necessarily serve the interests of the purported beneficiaries? How do we measure our philanthropic ventures? By how much moral satisfaction we receive, by how much financial return we make, or by how much the people who need it most benefit? Are we like the continuously pregnant mother who cannot bear the thought of not having somebody dependent on her?
We may come to Christ on the fear of eternal damnation: allegorically, as workers we may work so as not to get fired. But as we draw closer to God, we find that suffering of any kind is irrelevant. Once the Jubilee Effect multiplies and spreads, the object of our concern surpasses earthly institutions. His Kingdom is not of this world.
Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (and vice versa). Invest in God-mandated endeavours, and you will draw closer to Him. Draw closer to Him, and you will invest all the more, those investments being blessed and ordained by God.
I begin by a simple outline of a common economic theory: that of ‘Supermarket Wages’. It is commonly recognised, indeed empirically supported, that paying workers the minimum wage possible is not, in fact, economic. If their reward only marginally outweighs the opportunity cost of work (i.e., leisure or alternative work), then they have little incentive to apply effort. Indeed, if workers are offered the minimum amount for them not to leave, why should they work any more than the minimum amount for them not to be fired?
The employer is then forced to monitor the worker’s behaviour to ensure that s/he does not ‘shirk’, or ‘skive’ when nobody is looking, thus incurring administrative costs. Economists agree that by paying workers a fixed premium (perhaps sweetened with performance-dependent perks), the company acts in its own interest; even if at first its staffing costs increase. Firstly, if the worker understands that the equivalent occupation in a competitor company will not pay as much, s/he will be incentivised to keep his/her job. Secondly, s/he will feel a sense of self-worth, and will hence be (even unconsciously) more motivated. Thirdly, if rewards depend on performance, the worker obviously acts in his/her own interest by working as hard as possible. Moreover, non-pecuniary rewards, such as prospects of promotion, will have the same affect.
In other words, you get what you pay for. If you rip off a worker, you get ripped off. Likewise, if you as a worker rip off your company, you’ll end up paying through low-wage employment, unemployment, or low self-esteem.
This is a simple example of the law of reciprocity (‘you reap what you sow’; see previous blogs). Interestingly, during the slave trade, many of its detractors argued in purely economic terms, regardless of its moral dimension. Whilst we often associate abolition movements with William Wilberforce, and the civil rights movement with Martin Luther King, there are those who agreed with the proposition of freedom simply out of self-interest.
To elucidate, apply the law of ‘Supermarket Wages’ to the idea of slavery. A slave works because s/he is compelled to do so. There is no alternative, no potential competing employer, and so the master sees no immediate reason to treat the slave with any manner of decency, or to reward his/her work. The slave works sufficiently so as not to receive a beating, and if the master is not gauging performance, will just as soon drop his/her sickle (or run away). Indeed, even some masters understood this law of reciprocity, and did in fact reward good behaviour in various ways, for instance through the prospect of ‘promotion’ to house-servant.
Hence, many abolitionists argued that the prospect of free labour would in fact be more economic. Not only would workers in poor nations flock to the prospect of paid work, all competing with each other and so attempting to outperform other workers, they would work harder once employed to keep their job. If you ‘do to others as you would have them do to you’, then – remarkably – they will do likewise.
Similarly, by repressing the potential of the black population, the United States denied itself a large part of its workforce and uncovered potential. Moreover, the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany, which gave reason for Jews to flee to other countries (such as the United States), contributed to the downfall of their enterprise. A relatively miniscule race in terms of quantity, the Jews have displayed remarkable quality, through academic and practical ingenuity, receiving more Nobel Prizes than any other two groups put together. Think of Openheimer. Einstein, for crying out loud. Hitler did indeed ‘sow the seeds of his own destruction’.
I would like now to return to the issue of slavery. During the Transatlantic Slave Trade, Christians were divided on the message of the Bible at is pertained to slavery. Whilst ‘godly’ individuals possessed many slaves, and Paul evidently condoning it in several of his letters, it seemed to contradict the basic principles of love, on which Christianity seemed to be based. Resultantly, many people (especially those who had stocks in slave-fuelled companies) argued that slavery was in keeping with their faith, whilst others disagreed.
Whilst both the moral argument (essentially, one of ‘Love’) and the economic argument (which was just as self-serving as slavery) both led to the same end (eventual abolition), it is the thought that counts, and the difference between selfishness and selflessness did not elude God’s Divine Order. What replaced slavery was a system of ‘indentured servants’, which was essentially slavery by another name.
So who was right? From our liberal paradigm, we would obviously condemn notions of forced labour, even without the backing of biblical directives. Strangely, however, most of those who publically reproached slavery on moral grounds were often those who held the biggest shares. Contradictions abound. Paul states that ‘there is neither slave nor free’ because ‘all are equal in Christ Jesus’.
I now refer to one of my first blogs, that on Divine Order and Divine Authority. We are to obey the governments in place, for any Earthly Authority is subject to Divine Authority. Slavery clearly is not part of the ‘Divine Order’. For this reason, it has never lasted as an institution. It emerges, but eventually the bubble bursts. Whether we are subjected to humans or not, it makes no difference: for we are all subjected to the authority of God.
Moreover, we are all forgiven by the Grace of Christ. Earthly dependencies have no bearing, and so are irrelevant. Jesus didn’t free the Jews from Roman bondage; rather, He gave them a means to transcend it, and enter into a new Kingdom. Any empire is fated to self-destruction (I need not invoke historical examples, for they are apparent; indeed, see blog on ‘Nation-Building’) because it is fundamentally a self-serving enterprise, and so will reap what it sows. God hates slavery; that much is undeniable. To punish the abasement of such an institution, all He has to do is stand back and let his Divine Order do its thing.
Interestingly, many of our abolitionist ‘heroes’ such as Wilberforce were not in fact advocating the immediate freedom of slaves: distinguish between abolition and emancipation, the former being the banning of the slave trade, the latter being the banning of slavery as an institution. In other words, many abolitionists proposed ‘amelioration’, whereby existing slaves would have their conditions improved, as they were not fit to face the vagaries of the ‘real world’ such as labour market competition and self-sufficiency.
We must ensure that we do not fall into the same trap of arrogance. When we as Western nations lend money to ‘those poor Africans’, are we simply re-entering into colonial systems, thereby taking up the mantle of our imperial ancestors? If so, caution is recommended, for this will not escape the vigilance of God. Are we acting out of self-interest, fulfilling what Bill Easterly calls ‘the White Man’s Burden’: a moral conviction that does not necessarily serve the interests of the purported beneficiaries? How do we measure our philanthropic ventures? By how much moral satisfaction we receive, by how much financial return we make, or by how much the people who need it most benefit? Are we like the continuously pregnant mother who cannot bear the thought of not having somebody dependent on her?
We may come to Christ on the fear of eternal damnation: allegorically, as workers we may work so as not to get fired. But as we draw closer to God, we find that suffering of any kind is irrelevant. Once the Jubilee Effect multiplies and spreads, the object of our concern surpasses earthly institutions. His Kingdom is not of this world.
Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (and vice versa). Invest in God-mandated endeavours, and you will draw closer to Him. Draw closer to Him, and you will invest all the more, those investments being blessed and ordained by God.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
Re: Divine Order - ET Phone Home
Obviously, the Garden of Eden was perfect, without blemish. This much is ubiquitously understood. In terms of chronology, what we can extrapolate from the idea of perfection? Heaven, we know, is eternal, whereas Earth will 'wither away'. It would seem, then, that perhaps in the Garden of Eden there was no such thing as linear time. Why would there be?
Sin disrupted our link with God, and hence, with his dimension of existence. For this reason, Adam and Eve walked and talked with God as similiar beings, not as earth-dwellers hopefully sending an email to an unknown recipient in a galaxy far far away, as our relationship with God is often portrayed. We are earth-dwellers. However, we are not earthlings. We are 'extra-terrestrials', and when we pray, we are 'calling home'.
My point is simply this: when we enter into the Kingdom of God, which thanks to Jesus Christ is fully accessible to us even as imperfect beings, we enter into his dimension of chronology. God is the Great 'I AM'. He is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. How can he be in two places at the same time? Because in God's world, there is no difference between past, present, future.
Predestination and its concomittant paradoxes and dilemmas are hence nullified. Linear time is the result of imperfection, and the frustrations that are produced when our conception of time coincides with that of God are due to the divergence between perfection and imperfection.
In terms of prayer, it is worthwhile to reflect on the fact that the Lord's Prayer includes 'your Kingdom come, your will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven'. If we enter into a holistic view of time, our incentive for love, and our disincentive for fear, are both amplified. What have we to fear if we are pre-ordained? How much more have we to gain if life is eternal, by loving rather than storing up treasures on Earth?
For this reason, ET must keep phoning home. We have to stay in touch with our roots.
Sin disrupted our link with God, and hence, with his dimension of existence. For this reason, Adam and Eve walked and talked with God as similiar beings, not as earth-dwellers hopefully sending an email to an unknown recipient in a galaxy far far away, as our relationship with God is often portrayed. We are earth-dwellers. However, we are not earthlings. We are 'extra-terrestrials', and when we pray, we are 'calling home'.
My point is simply this: when we enter into the Kingdom of God, which thanks to Jesus Christ is fully accessible to us even as imperfect beings, we enter into his dimension of chronology. God is the Great 'I AM'. He is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. How can he be in two places at the same time? Because in God's world, there is no difference between past, present, future.
Predestination and its concomittant paradoxes and dilemmas are hence nullified. Linear time is the result of imperfection, and the frustrations that are produced when our conception of time coincides with that of God are due to the divergence between perfection and imperfection.
In terms of prayer, it is worthwhile to reflect on the fact that the Lord's Prayer includes 'your Kingdom come, your will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven'. If we enter into a holistic view of time, our incentive for love, and our disincentive for fear, are both amplified. What have we to fear if we are pre-ordained? How much more have we to gain if life is eternal, by loving rather than storing up treasures on Earth?
For this reason, ET must keep phoning home. We have to stay in touch with our roots.
Friday, 7 August 2009
Love: extension #2
I believe that I have stumbled across another application of the utility of love (this really shouldn't surprise me; indeed, I firmly hold that love is universally applicable, and ultimately, universally beneficial). I now apply it to the area of parenting.
I love my family. Why? Because they first loved me. Does this sound familiar? If you have read much of the Bible, it probably does. We love Christ, and others, because He first loved us.
I have been blessed with an ideal family. In fact, I cannot imagine a better upbringing. My family has shown me unfathomable love.
The result, I dare say, is that my incentive to rebel against my parents is practically null. Why should I rebel against my parents, if their actions are so transparently out of love for me? They always have my best interests in mind. Because they have been selfless in their lifestyle (see previous post), I feel in their debt. To demand more of them, directly by way of requests for more money for example (they have already paid my way through university), or indirectly by rebelling and hence requiring them to dedicate yet more time and effort to me as a person, would be beyond selfishness.
And yet, I often do rebel. How wretched I am. My sinful nature (NB: I always thought it was laughable that people, including myself, often attribute 'sin' to 'sinful nature' rather than 'human nature', as if it is somehow external from the self; even 'human nature' brings comfort from the idea that others also struggle with the same demons) compels me to rebel, whether I realise it at the time or not. I don't think that I rebel for the sake of rebelling; I am just selfish by nature.
How, then, can we rebel against God? As the ideal, perfectly holy parent, he literally died for us, gave us His Son, understanding this principle absolutely. Because we cannot understand His love, it makes us respond in kind. Usually. Or, perhaps, sometimes. Anyway, it should.
Rules are made to be broken. My parents understood this, I think, and God certainly does. The Law exists to show us our sin, and God's perfection, because he fulfills it through Christ when we never can. Love, on the other hand, is made to be reciprocated.
Moreover, Love is contagious. Referring to my previous posts, because we are eternally in our master's debt, we have no reason, indeed no right, to demand payment from our debtors. And so God's single act of Love, giving Christ to die for our sins, the embodiment of the fact that God is love, paid for everyone's debt. If we are in debt to Him, and somebody is in debt to us, then, bicariously, that person is no longer in debt to us but also to Him (indeed, this is perhaps something that financiers should have grasped; it may have saved us a whole lot of hassle when trying to untangle this financial crisis). We have no reason or right to treat them as subsurvient.
Hence we have an incentive to show love to our neighbour as well as to God. This I term the 'Jubilee Effect' of Love, due to the analogy of debt cancellation.
I think that Love transmits itself in two ways: through expansion, and through multiplication, both of which carry the Jubilee Effect.
Firstly, when love is shown, love is returned to the giver. The original giver is then a receiver, and this gives him/her even more reason to act in a loving way. Although this is chicken-and-egg, once it starts, even between two people its magnitude can multiply ad infinitum. It is for this reason that eternity will just keep getting better. It is for this reason, moreover, that I begin to understand the sanctity of a family. A group of people who act in a loving way to each other will indeed reap what they sow, and God will bless their commitment to each other exponentially.
Secondly, when somebody is shown love, they act in a loving way, not only to the giver but also to 'innocent bystanders'. If each of these people are struck by the love shown to them, they may go on to act similiarly, to others. It is through this mechanism that I begin to understand the importance of a principled society.
Returning to the first post on this blog, it is by the Jubilee Effect, transmitted both expansively and multiplicatively (are those words?) that the Divine Order must be implemented.
Think of what one act of Love can achieve, especially if under the right circumstances. Consider the Good Samaritan. The man he helped would surely be in his debt from that point on, both financially and figuratively. Do you think that he would then go on to treat other Samaritans in the way that was commonly practiced at the time - one of demeaning derogation, of demeaning marginalisation? How dare he? Why would he?
All you need is love.
I love my family. Why? Because they first loved me. Does this sound familiar? If you have read much of the Bible, it probably does. We love Christ, and others, because He first loved us.
I have been blessed with an ideal family. In fact, I cannot imagine a better upbringing. My family has shown me unfathomable love.
The result, I dare say, is that my incentive to rebel against my parents is practically null. Why should I rebel against my parents, if their actions are so transparently out of love for me? They always have my best interests in mind. Because they have been selfless in their lifestyle (see previous post), I feel in their debt. To demand more of them, directly by way of requests for more money for example (they have already paid my way through university), or indirectly by rebelling and hence requiring them to dedicate yet more time and effort to me as a person, would be beyond selfishness.
And yet, I often do rebel. How wretched I am. My sinful nature (NB: I always thought it was laughable that people, including myself, often attribute 'sin' to 'sinful nature' rather than 'human nature', as if it is somehow external from the self; even 'human nature' brings comfort from the idea that others also struggle with the same demons) compels me to rebel, whether I realise it at the time or not. I don't think that I rebel for the sake of rebelling; I am just selfish by nature.
How, then, can we rebel against God? As the ideal, perfectly holy parent, he literally died for us, gave us His Son, understanding this principle absolutely. Because we cannot understand His love, it makes us respond in kind. Usually. Or, perhaps, sometimes. Anyway, it should.
Rules are made to be broken. My parents understood this, I think, and God certainly does. The Law exists to show us our sin, and God's perfection, because he fulfills it through Christ when we never can. Love, on the other hand, is made to be reciprocated.
Moreover, Love is contagious. Referring to my previous posts, because we are eternally in our master's debt, we have no reason, indeed no right, to demand payment from our debtors. And so God's single act of Love, giving Christ to die for our sins, the embodiment of the fact that God is love, paid for everyone's debt. If we are in debt to Him, and somebody is in debt to us, then, bicariously, that person is no longer in debt to us but also to Him (indeed, this is perhaps something that financiers should have grasped; it may have saved us a whole lot of hassle when trying to untangle this financial crisis). We have no reason or right to treat them as subsurvient.
Hence we have an incentive to show love to our neighbour as well as to God. This I term the 'Jubilee Effect' of Love, due to the analogy of debt cancellation.
I think that Love transmits itself in two ways: through expansion, and through multiplication, both of which carry the Jubilee Effect.
Firstly, when love is shown, love is returned to the giver. The original giver is then a receiver, and this gives him/her even more reason to act in a loving way. Although this is chicken-and-egg, once it starts, even between two people its magnitude can multiply ad infinitum. It is for this reason that eternity will just keep getting better. It is for this reason, moreover, that I begin to understand the sanctity of a family. A group of people who act in a loving way to each other will indeed reap what they sow, and God will bless their commitment to each other exponentially.
Secondly, when somebody is shown love, they act in a loving way, not only to the giver but also to 'innocent bystanders'. If each of these people are struck by the love shown to them, they may go on to act similiarly, to others. It is through this mechanism that I begin to understand the importance of a principled society.
Returning to the first post on this blog, it is by the Jubilee Effect, transmitted both expansively and multiplicatively (are those words?) that the Divine Order must be implemented.
Think of what one act of Love can achieve, especially if under the right circumstances. Consider the Good Samaritan. The man he helped would surely be in his debt from that point on, both financially and figuratively. Do you think that he would then go on to treat other Samaritans in the way that was commonly practiced at the time - one of demeaning derogation, of demeaning marginalisation? How dare he? Why would he?
All you need is love.
Saturday, 1 August 2009
Love: extension
P.S.
There is absolutely no reason to feel self-righteous about living a selfless life.
As the Lord's prayer stipulates, we forgive our debtors because we are forgiven. And our debt to God, payed by his only Son, is far greater than the debts that anybody owes us. Remember the parable of the selfish man who owed the king money, but was ruthless when his own debtor failed to pay. The result? He ended up obliged to pay his own debt, and was forced into prison, subjected to a lower level than even his debtor.
We must remember that we are forever in His debt. We can never repay him, but thank God, we don't have to. The least we can do is to obey Him in forgiving those who wrong us.
There is absolutely no reason to feel self-righteous about living a selfless life.
As the Lord's prayer stipulates, we forgive our debtors because we are forgiven. And our debt to God, payed by his only Son, is far greater than the debts that anybody owes us. Remember the parable of the selfish man who owed the king money, but was ruthless when his own debtor failed to pay. The result? He ended up obliged to pay his own debt, and was forced into prison, subjected to a lower level than even his debtor.
We must remember that we are forever in His debt. We can never repay him, but thank God, we don't have to. The least we can do is to obey Him in forgiving those who wrong us.
Love and Investment/Nation-Building
You reap what you sow. This is a universal principle, embedded intricately in every aspect of life. Not surprisingly, it is also a Biblical principle; indeed, I have found that it is foundational for understanding the core of Christian teaching.
We are often told to act in a selfless way in the Bible, often in repsonse to a misdeed that has been performed against us. We are told to pray for those who persecute us, to turn the other cheek, to walk the extra mile, to give our cloak along with our tunic. What is the purpose of this way of living? What motive should underlie it? What is the result?
I believe that there are two reasons, inextricably linked, that justify a selfless approach to life. The first is that selfishness is counter-productive, as I will explicate hereafter. The second is that by acting selflessly, that is, by denying ourselves, we draw closer to God, reach a higher level of existence and contentment, and ultimately, benefit ourselves materially as well. Watch out though - if this last result becomes your objective, you will soon find that all of the above become irrelevant.
Crucially, therefore, they must be upheld by a selfless heart. Acting in humility for the sake of reward will yield only the reward that you seek, which is doomed along with this world. This principle, I assert, can be applied to every aspect of life.
Take investment, for instance. It has been widely acknowledged that the poor possess untapped productive potential. Investors, however, are usually turned away from microfinance because they fear (validly) that any income will be spent on immediate humanitarian needs, rather than on wealth creation through savings, which is bad news for the investor, who will lose out in the short term. But what if these immediate needs can eventually be satisfied?
The fundamental laws of economics, inscribed into human behaviour and understood, expounded, and elaborated in the Bible, dictate that the law of diminishing returns should apply. In other words, once we can overcome this initial barrier, the returns on our investment will be far greater than what we initially seek.
Even this initial stage of low returns should not be seen as a barrier. What good is it for man to gain the world yet forfeit his soul? Even if we receive no reward for our investments, we should feel obliged, justified, and indeed, priveleged, to offer them. Whether we are rewarded immediately, later, or in Heaven is up to God. What is evident is that the longer you wait for something, the better it gets; take any earthly desire, including hunger, marriage, sex, success. As Christians, we must see the time horizon on our investments as eternal, because, of course, they are. Moreover, we must see that our investments are guaranteed by the highest authority there is - not a central bank, not a financial watchdog or overseer, but God himself.
The recent success of microfinance bears witness to this truism. Indeed, even the chief economist at the World Bank has sung its praises. Default rates on loans to poor people in developing countries are negligible, especially in comparison to the recent sub-prime mortgage crisis that arguably triggered our current financial mileau. Borrowing (or equivalently, investing) with a selfish mindset will yield earthly returns; and because the earth is tainted with sin, these returns are corruptible, and ultimately, doomed to eventual crisis and inevitable failure. Lending with a selfless mindset will yield returns that multiply 'seven-fold-seven'.
This principle can be applied even to the self. Saving instead of consuming will yield higher possibilities for consumption in the future, even if it involves an intitial sacrifice. Obviously, there is a balance - saving the totality of one's income will not be very satisfying. But the concept remains, and the current financial crisis was caused in part by global imbalances; Americans were spending beyond their means, financed by Asian economies, which were saving to compensate. The immediate consumptive pursuit of happiness led to the eventual corrective adjustment, which proves to be more painful when all is said and done. Everything in moderation.
Lastly, I would apply the Biblical commandment of love (which Christ himself stated fulfills all other commandments) to the idea of post-conflict reconstruction and development. 'Mission accomplishment' was declared within weeks of invading Iraq, but clearly the war is far from over. In Afghanistan, winning the war requries winning hearts and minds, not battles. A selfish mindset of conquest will eventually lead to the downfall of empires, as the experience of Rome, the Third Reich, and any other imperialistic endeavour attest. Seeking to exploit resources will produce civil war, making trade inaccessible, thereby defeating the original purpose of invasion. A selfless mindset of improving people's standard of living will create a lasting relationship of trust; the trade and resources will follow.
The last shall be first and the first shall be last. This is an inescapable truth, and one which we should take to heart. The fundamental problems of poverty revolve around problems of collective action - each person in a group acts rationally according to their own interest, and within this hedonistic system of incentives, the collective outcome will be irrationality. Each person will be worse off. This concept lies at the core of problems of overpopulation, migration, pollution, theft, conflict, corruption, disease, and any other worldwide problem that you care to mention.
Love is the only solution. It is all that is required to access our inheritance of abundance, but without it, the door is locked. The key requires us to deny ourselves. Seek first his Kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you as well.
We are often told to act in a selfless way in the Bible, often in repsonse to a misdeed that has been performed against us. We are told to pray for those who persecute us, to turn the other cheek, to walk the extra mile, to give our cloak along with our tunic. What is the purpose of this way of living? What motive should underlie it? What is the result?
I believe that there are two reasons, inextricably linked, that justify a selfless approach to life. The first is that selfishness is counter-productive, as I will explicate hereafter. The second is that by acting selflessly, that is, by denying ourselves, we draw closer to God, reach a higher level of existence and contentment, and ultimately, benefit ourselves materially as well. Watch out though - if this last result becomes your objective, you will soon find that all of the above become irrelevant.
Crucially, therefore, they must be upheld by a selfless heart. Acting in humility for the sake of reward will yield only the reward that you seek, which is doomed along with this world. This principle, I assert, can be applied to every aspect of life.
Take investment, for instance. It has been widely acknowledged that the poor possess untapped productive potential. Investors, however, are usually turned away from microfinance because they fear (validly) that any income will be spent on immediate humanitarian needs, rather than on wealth creation through savings, which is bad news for the investor, who will lose out in the short term. But what if these immediate needs can eventually be satisfied?
The fundamental laws of economics, inscribed into human behaviour and understood, expounded, and elaborated in the Bible, dictate that the law of diminishing returns should apply. In other words, once we can overcome this initial barrier, the returns on our investment will be far greater than what we initially seek.
Even this initial stage of low returns should not be seen as a barrier. What good is it for man to gain the world yet forfeit his soul? Even if we receive no reward for our investments, we should feel obliged, justified, and indeed, priveleged, to offer them. Whether we are rewarded immediately, later, or in Heaven is up to God. What is evident is that the longer you wait for something, the better it gets; take any earthly desire, including hunger, marriage, sex, success. As Christians, we must see the time horizon on our investments as eternal, because, of course, they are. Moreover, we must see that our investments are guaranteed by the highest authority there is - not a central bank, not a financial watchdog or overseer, but God himself.
The recent success of microfinance bears witness to this truism. Indeed, even the chief economist at the World Bank has sung its praises. Default rates on loans to poor people in developing countries are negligible, especially in comparison to the recent sub-prime mortgage crisis that arguably triggered our current financial mileau. Borrowing (or equivalently, investing) with a selfish mindset will yield earthly returns; and because the earth is tainted with sin, these returns are corruptible, and ultimately, doomed to eventual crisis and inevitable failure. Lending with a selfless mindset will yield returns that multiply 'seven-fold-seven'.
This principle can be applied even to the self. Saving instead of consuming will yield higher possibilities for consumption in the future, even if it involves an intitial sacrifice. Obviously, there is a balance - saving the totality of one's income will not be very satisfying. But the concept remains, and the current financial crisis was caused in part by global imbalances; Americans were spending beyond their means, financed by Asian economies, which were saving to compensate. The immediate consumptive pursuit of happiness led to the eventual corrective adjustment, which proves to be more painful when all is said and done. Everything in moderation.
Lastly, I would apply the Biblical commandment of love (which Christ himself stated fulfills all other commandments) to the idea of post-conflict reconstruction and development. 'Mission accomplishment' was declared within weeks of invading Iraq, but clearly the war is far from over. In Afghanistan, winning the war requries winning hearts and minds, not battles. A selfish mindset of conquest will eventually lead to the downfall of empires, as the experience of Rome, the Third Reich, and any other imperialistic endeavour attest. Seeking to exploit resources will produce civil war, making trade inaccessible, thereby defeating the original purpose of invasion. A selfless mindset of improving people's standard of living will create a lasting relationship of trust; the trade and resources will follow.
The last shall be first and the first shall be last. This is an inescapable truth, and one which we should take to heart. The fundamental problems of poverty revolve around problems of collective action - each person in a group acts rationally according to their own interest, and within this hedonistic system of incentives, the collective outcome will be irrationality. Each person will be worse off. This concept lies at the core of problems of overpopulation, migration, pollution, theft, conflict, corruption, disease, and any other worldwide problem that you care to mention.
Love is the only solution. It is all that is required to access our inheritance of abundance, but without it, the door is locked. The key requires us to deny ourselves. Seek first his Kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)