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 However, the promise of payment is never rescinded.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.
Sunday, 10 January 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Gifts From the Past
Today I submit a post that differs substantially from my previous discussions. Whilst lacking the analytical rigour and insightful perception of my usual blogs, this time I present a narrative, a tesimony even, on something that I feel led to share.
When I was in my early teens, I had a strange and sudden awareness one day whilst walking the dog. I felt that God was instilling me with some sort of psychological gift. The memory is perhaps best captured by the image of 'Neo' in 'The Matrix' being 'plugged in' to computer programmes that instantaneously impart information into his brain. This new-found ability consisted of the externalisation of self-perception: to be able to 'jump out of my own brain' and to see myself in the third-person. This is obviously impossible; even viewing yourself from without does not eliminate the definitional necessity that I must still be perceiving through my own senses or psyche. Hence, this was some sort of recursive, continuous process; I felt that I was able to continually jump out of myself into an 'external self' and then to immediately jump out of that external self into an ex-external self. An image of infinitely concentric circles serves to illustrate. In this way, the ability was one of a process, striving towards some non-human knowledge rather occupying some super-human persona.
The image of Neo performs well as a comparison, because it would probably be possible for Neo to know how to do something without knowing that he could do it (hopefully that was a cogent sentence). In other words, at some point in time, he may find himself in a situation that demands a particular skill, which he is surprised to find that he indeed possesses. He then retrospectively identifies the point in time at which he received this skill. This is indeed what happened to me.
I have an obsessive characteristic in my personality, which has led to both success and to self-destruction in my life. In this way it is not a virtue or vice, but rather a trait that has creative and destructive potential. Indeed, it is often thought that the link between genius and autism is not intellectual, but rather based on the obsessive characteristic of autism that allows a person to concentrate on one task, however menial, for long enough to discover certain patterns, which may in fact be obvious even if previously unknown. Indeed, most 'great theories' seem obvious once they have been discovered. Consider gravity.
After recovering from a debilitating illness, brought on through this obsessive trait, my psychologist remarked that I had displayed a remarkable, and in his experience unique, ability to externalise the problem. Indeed, recognition of the problem (which they say is half the battle) came very early on for me. Recovery then consisted of a battle between the external self, which consciously acknowledged the issue, and the internal self, where the issue lay. I was able to rationalise my own irrationality: to frame it, analyse it, and battle it.
This is obviously a necessary feature of any psychological recovery, especially for sustainability. However, after emerging from this episode in my life, I now look back on that time when I was but 14 years of age, as the point in time that God invested in me the capacity to defend myself from myself. In this way, God saved my life.
God has healed me in much more direct ways since then, which require expansive explication in themselves. However, I feel especially led to record this experience.
Sunday, 8 November 2009
Types of Learning, Types of Worship
+How do you learn? Do you imbibe information and concepts graphically? Do you have to touch things in order to truly understand their nature? Do you have to interact with a thing before you can really know it? Or are you an abstract thinker, dealing with concepts as they appear in words?
I, for one, have always learnt through words. The odd graph helps to visualise the concept, but I have always been a natural reader of words. This lexical preference, however, extends beyond revising for exams. When I really want to interact with God, I delve into scripture.
To worship is to learn. This connection is bipartite.
First, to worship is to interact with God. Thanks to Christ, worship is bilateral rather than unilateral; that is, we respond to his action, and in turn, he responds to our worship. There is no need to construct memorials to an 'unknown God', no need to routinely offer anonymous sacrifices. Through Christ, we connect to God on a one-to-one basis.
Second, to interact with God is to learn about God. It will take eternity to understand him fully, which is why we will be worshipping for eternity. Whether you are reading his Words, worshipping him through songs, or whatever, you are firstly interacting with Him, and secondly learning about Him.
If this is the case, then it is crucial that we understand ourselves, in order to best position ourselves for worship. For some people, smells and bells works. For some people, routine prayers and familiar structures work. For others, spontaneity is required in order to truly engage themselves with what is occurring. Some like their worship loud and wild, stirring for the emotions, whilst others find this distracting, preferring a more tranquil form.
Allegorically, some people prefer to study in the silence of their room. Others favour some sort of soundtrack – whether it is their favourite classical music CD, or the hussle-bussle of a cafe environment. Some have to lock themselves in a library, whilst others will gladly stretch out on a blanket in the park.
This heterogeneity of preferences is not something to be shunned. There is no 'right' way of worship, because worship, although a collective endeavour, is fundamentally personal. Thus, personal preferences matter for the 'efficacy' of worship. But then, worship is obviously more than structured praise. As we know, it is about how we live our lives – every aspect.
My point is that each person is gifted differently, and as such, should focus their activities (both structured worship and all other aspects of life) so as to maximise their 'worship productivity'. In other words, each person, being a separate member of the Body of Christ, should specialise in the area in which they are advantaged. This ensures the smooth running of the whole; that is, the Church of Christ.
Obviously, there is a need for balance, and we should ensure that our worship is holistic. We should not neglect praise for Bible reading, or vice versa. Moreover, without 'core components' of worship, such as the Word and praise, one's ability to live a Christian life may be inhibited. However, the point remains.
So what works for you? If you learn through interacting with others, then make sure that you are discussing God with other people. If you learn through self-study, then leave yourself time to worship God through words. You get the idea.
As a concluding note, God knows us better than we know ourselves (he knit us together in our mothers' womb, he knows all the hairs on our head). He created us intentionally, just as we are. For that reason, he will expect our response to correspond to those features which he has invested in us. An interesting example is the appearance of God (yes, the one and only God) in the folklore of isolated tribes (see Eternity in Their Hearts). Generational, verbal stories were the method of learning for these (often illiterate) people. God knew this, and acted accordingly.
In sum, expect God to reach you through the way he has created you, and respond in kind. Keep in mind that you will have to be stretched, but remember that to seek knowledge is to seek God. Sure beats revising for an exam.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Jesus as a Solution
Jesus is the solution to a problem. In our permissive age, people no longer recognise that there is actually a problem; at least, they deny that man is inherently evil. The starting point for logical inferences usually assumes that man is inherently good - and therefore that any evil in the world must be enacted by man's counterpart, i.e. God (see post on 'Problem of Evil or Mystery of Love').
CS Lewis said that regrettably, before we can teach the 'Good News', we must first teach the 'Bad News'. During the summer, I passed by several churches, with advertisements (yes, advertisements), with slogans such as 'Power Church: adding value to your life'. Adding value? As an economist (aspiring), added value usually implies that there is already something 'good', to which value is being added. This implies that man is inherently good, and could be happy without God, but that he brings 'something extra' to your life, along with many other conveniencies that you may find in life, most likely through the exchange of money.
Should it not be 'creating value'? Is there really anything OTHER than Jesus worth living for (or dying for?) Of course not! Jesus is THE ANSWER, not AN ANSWER. I will demonstrate this in a somewhat formal manner.
Growing up in a Christian home, I was taught the solution first. This was great - it allowed me to have a very rich childhood. However, you often forget (or assume away) the problem. It is for this reason, I would argue, that many people are perturbed by the Old Testament, full of massacres, death, punishment, and war. I think I know why we have the Old Testament - in fact, I'm sure of it. Paul says that we have the law to show us our sins. If we did not have it, we would not understand that we need help, quite desperately.
The reason is that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The two clauses of this verse represent the Old and New Testaments respectively. I will treat them as two sides to an equation.
Firstly, the old Testament.
Creation: man is created in God's image, that is, with eternal life.
Man = Life
Man sins. Subtract sin from both sides of the equation.
Fall: Man – Sin = Life – Sin
and because the wages of Sin = Death,
Man – Sin = Life – Death
Not only is life non-eternal (the right side of the above equation), but life is bound by sin. Rearrange to get
Man + Death = Life + Sin
New Testament:
Jesus adds a new variable and a new equation:
Jesus - Sin (takes on our sin) = – Death (takes away death) + Life (gives life)
The left side is the crucifixion. -Death represents Mercy, whereas + Life represents Grace.
solving simultaneous equations,
Jesus = Sin – Death + Life --> Sin + Life = Jesus + Death
Man = Sin + Life – Death --> Man = (Jesus + Death) – Death
--> Man = Jesus,
and we know that Jesus = Sin – Death + Life, and that Sin = Death (so that Sin – Death = 0)
--> Man = Life, and Life = Jesus
We are left with eternal life. How? Only if we accept the process above, particularly the solution of simultaneous equations. If we refuse to let Jesus 'substitute' Himself for our Sinful Life, we remain not only with that Sinful Life, but always with Death.
People often wonder whether they could live with having to serve God. I think the question is, can you live without him?
CS Lewis said that regrettably, before we can teach the 'Good News', we must first teach the 'Bad News'. During the summer, I passed by several churches, with advertisements (yes, advertisements), with slogans such as 'Power Church: adding value to your life'. Adding value? As an economist (aspiring), added value usually implies that there is already something 'good', to which value is being added. This implies that man is inherently good, and could be happy without God, but that he brings 'something extra' to your life, along with many other conveniencies that you may find in life, most likely through the exchange of money.
Should it not be 'creating value'? Is there really anything OTHER than Jesus worth living for (or dying for?) Of course not! Jesus is THE ANSWER, not AN ANSWER. I will demonstrate this in a somewhat formal manner.
Growing up in a Christian home, I was taught the solution first. This was great - it allowed me to have a very rich childhood. However, you often forget (or assume away) the problem. It is for this reason, I would argue, that many people are perturbed by the Old Testament, full of massacres, death, punishment, and war. I think I know why we have the Old Testament - in fact, I'm sure of it. Paul says that we have the law to show us our sins. If we did not have it, we would not understand that we need help, quite desperately.
The reason is that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The two clauses of this verse represent the Old and New Testaments respectively. I will treat them as two sides to an equation.
Firstly, the old Testament.
Creation: man is created in God's image, that is, with eternal life.
Man = Life
Man sins. Subtract sin from both sides of the equation.
Fall: Man – Sin = Life – Sin
and because the wages of Sin = Death,
Man – Sin = Life – Death
Not only is life non-eternal (the right side of the above equation), but life is bound by sin. Rearrange to get
Man + Death = Life + Sin
New Testament:
Jesus adds a new variable and a new equation:
Jesus - Sin (takes on our sin) = – Death (takes away death) + Life (gives life)
The left side is the crucifixion. -Death represents Mercy, whereas + Life represents Grace.
solving simultaneous equations,
Jesus = Sin – Death + Life --> Sin + Life = Jesus + Death
Man = Sin + Life – Death --> Man = (Jesus + Death) – Death
--> Man = Jesus,
and we know that Jesus = Sin – Death + Life, and that Sin = Death (so that Sin – Death = 0)
--> Man = Life, and Life = Jesus
We are left with eternal life. How? Only if we accept the process above, particularly the solution of simultaneous equations. If we refuse to let Jesus 'substitute' Himself for our Sinful Life, we remain not only with that Sinful Life, but always with Death.
People often wonder whether they could live with having to serve God. I think the question is, can you live without him?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)