The Economy of Justice and Mercy

by Melody Tan
Rich and sweet, it can ooze out delectably from a beautifully-crafted molten cake, although I enjoy it best when a solid piece simply melts in my mouth, transforming into a sticky, gooey mess. Then there’s its sibling in hot, liquid form, best savoured on a cold evening, preferably with a wood fire burning in the room and a good book in my hand.
Chocolate. One of life’s simple treats—and one of the world’s most exploitive industries.
The main producers of cocoa, from which chocolate is made, are the West African countries of Ivory Coast and Ghana, areas not exactly known for fair industrial relations or the respect of workers’ rights. The harvesting of cocoa pods, which houses the beans, is a labour-intensive affair and one done most frequently by young children whose families are struggling to eke out a living with their little cocoa farms.
According to Fortune magazine, there are an estimated 2.1 million West African children doing the dangerous and physically taxing work of harvesting cocoa. They are denied an education, are forced to work long hours without pay, and expected to wield adult-sized machetes and haul their own weight in bags of beans.
The Harkin-Engel Protocol, prompted by a condemning documentary by the BBC that reported the use of enslaved children in the production of cocoa, was signed and witnessed by the heads of eight major chocolate companies in September 2001, with the aim of ending child labour on cocoa farms in West Africa. And while the number of trafficked children who are held as slaves appears to have fallen, with the average cocoa farmer still living below the international poverty line (despite the chocolate industry being worth some $US100 billion and prices of cocoa surging 13 percent last year), it’s not difficult to understand why unpaid children still make up the bulk of its workforce.
Modern slavery
Such exploitation isn’t limited to West African nations. The 2016 Global Slavery Index found that 45.8 million people live in slavery across 167 countries. That’s the entire population of Spain, or two slaves out of every 350 people in the world!
The Walk Free organisation, which released the Global Slavery Index, defines modern slavery as “when one person possesses or controls another person in such a way as to significantly deprive that person of their individual liberty, with the intention of exploiting that person through their use, profit, transfer or disposal.”
Many think such exploitation involves free labour, but I would go so far to say that it even involves “paid” labour, especially in instances when the salary is in no way proportionate to the work required. And neither is the chocolate or food industry the only culprit in utilising slavery—the manufacturing, construction and hospitality industries can be just as guilty.
In 2013 Rana Plaza, an eight-story commercial building in Bangladesh, collapsed, killing some 1130 people and injuring 2500, giving it the disreputable title of being the deadliest garment-factory accident in history. But besides being an indictment of the country’s dubious construction quality, it highlighted the squalid conditions textile and garment workers are forced to work in.
The clincher? These workers were making clothing for multi-million-dollar international brand names such as Benetton, Monsoon Accessorize, Mango and Walmart—companies who obviously chose to focus on the profit margins that could be gained from low production costs, while ignoring the exploitive nature of cheap labour and its associated less-than-ideal working conditions.
It’s a tale most of us would be familiar with; stories of the high human cost of “cheap” and mass-produced clothing. The workers in this factories, more commonly referred to as sweatshops, endure long hours, low wages and other violations of labour—and even human—rights. Some are only allowed a certain number of toilet breaks, exposed to toxic substances or use dangerous machinery without adequate protection, and worse, face very real threats of sexual assaults and harassment.
You would be wrong, however, to think these issues happen only overseas in developing countries. In April, the Sydney Morning Herald wrote about east African housekeeper Susan, who was brought from Africa by her Australian employer when the family relocated to Sydney. She was forced to work unpaid 18-hour days and sleep under the dining room table with three dogs. She was given a single bag of rice to eat and had her passport taken away. Fortunately for her, she managed to escape thanks to an unlocked padlock on the back gate. Today, she lives as a free woman and works as an assistant in nursing.
Susan’s story is a tragic one involving human trafficking, but as earlier mentioned, even those who have “voluntarily” chosen their “paid” jobs can be exploited. You only have to speak to a chambermaid at most hotels in the very city you live in to learn that some are paid based on the number of rooms they clean. That may mean cleaning three dirty rooms an hour (24 rooms in an average eight-hour work day) in order to make minimum wage.
This is the most sinister kind of slavery, for it appears “fair”, but it’s merely a subterfuge to maximize employers’ profits.
Whose responsibility?
Regardless of their success rates, the chocolate industry’s Harkin-Engel Protocol and the fashion industry response to the Rana Plaza incident to take better control over its supply chain, are commendable in that corporations appear to be taking steps to improve the livelihoods of others.
But organisations should not be the only ones held accountable here. After all, by creating demand, each of us is somewhat complicit in the actions and decisions of these businesses. As Belgian politician and European Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, told British newspaper, The Independent, in the aftermath of the Rana Plaza incident, “I think the customers should take a bit of responsibility. Everybody is now screaming scandal but we are very pleased with the cheap T-shirts. I don’t think people working for a whole month for $40 in unacceptable health and safety conditions, paying with their lives, is acceptable.”
Christians have an even bigger burden to bear: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8; italics added).
Willingly endangering the lives of young children so we can enjoy a chocolate bar is not “acting justly”.
Purchasing a brand new top for $10 knowing it perpetuates the cycle of poverty and misery for the person who made it is not “loving mercy”.
What we choose to spend on our money on impacts lives somewhere, somehow, and can reflect on our higher calling to act justly and love mercy.
Some may argue wages aren’t a matter of justice or mercy and that it’s simply economics, but if that were true, perhaps it’s time we took a long, hard look at the capitalist nature of our economy. This isn’t an argument about paying an employee a salary proportionate to their job scope while ensuring maximum benefits for the employer, as the modern economy prescribes. This is simply about not taking advantage of someone and ignoring—or even adding to—their suffering while denying their basic labour and human rights.
When economy dictates we prey on the weak in order to come out on top, we are neither seeing justice nor mercy. After all, even the Bible, which may appear to condone slavery in the Old Testament times, provided slaves back then with far more rights and privileges than those of today. For starters, there was an actual end to their service (Exodus 21:2–4) and physical abuse was never tolerated (verses 26 and 27).
Practically speaking
So do we simply stop eating chocolate, wearing clothes and staying in hotels while on holidays? Or are fair trade and sweatshop-free products the only things Christians can and should purchase? Do we have to scrutinise the origins, supply chain and business practices of every single item?
While they may be good habits to cultivate, the reality is, if we were to strictly follow such routines for our lives, it is easy to predict it won’t be long before we tire of the process, suffering from analysis paralysis or even worse, give up and embrace apathy.
The other challenge we face is an ironically self-perpetuated one. Thanks to the longstanding practice of exploiting others, we are used to a marketplace of cheap products. Deciding to pay people a fair wage can feel like an expensive one change. Suddenly, we think we are paying more but getting less, and while many of us may not be living hand to mouth, the extra costs can add up.
It’s not an easy solution, but perhaps one of the first places to start is in Matthew: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal” (6:19) and 1 Timothy: “For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it” (6:7).
We live in a world where we’re used to buying “stuff” without much thought: If it looks “cute”, if we like it, if we are feeling bad, if we are feeling good… for a whole gamut of reasons, we inevitably find ourselves coming home from a trip to the shopping centre with bags of stuff we want, but don’t actually need.
Developing counterculture habits such as this will take time and guidance, but we have a generous God who will all too willingly give us all the wisdom we need (James 1:5). And when we cut out the clutter and all the unnecessary stuff in our lives, we may actually be free to research the products we do need and be able to afford to act justly and love mercy.
Melody Tan works as an assistant editor at Signs of the Times magazine in Australia, and is about to be a new parent.
If you appreciated this piece, please consider giving a donation to Adventist Today to keep this quality of content available!
Melody,
There is much one might comment on here. You seem to equate slavery with low wages which is nonsensical. There are millions and millions of people that give thanks for their low-wage job because their family would be literally starving without that job. No-wage jobs that you can’t quit, that’s slavery.
My wife used to work cleaning motel rooms for minimum wage. We were thankful for her job and we thought the owner was a nice guy. Is it slavery because the owner is a big, faceless, corporation?
You can always sleep in your car or on the floor at the airport. If everybody did that, then the hotel maid would be out of work. Perhaps she will send you a ‘thank you’ card.
Actually your tone reminds me of Judas Iscariot: Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
I have a suggestion. Why don’t you do something extravagant for a specific poor person instead of fussing about the unhappy circumstances of millions that you can do nothing about. Why don’t you give the maid a $100 tip your next trip? That would make her day. Be like Mary, do it for Jesus sake.
Mr. Abbott, I have noticed your posts nearly always exhibit a harsh and critical tone. Perhaps you might consider changing that.
Carrol,
Perhaps I should. You are the second person today who has made that suggestion.
But argument and debate is dependent on two sides. If I vigorously disagree with Melody’s idea of low wages being equated with slavery, how am I not to be critical? My retort was personal because Melody’s example was personal.
Harsh is another matter, I can be too blunt.
Jesus was definitely gentler with women than with men and I do want to imitate Him. I will remember your words of advice, especially when I am addressing a woman. Fair enough?
Gentler with women than men?
Jesus respected the actions of special women over other men and women’s faithlessness.
I wonder if the irony of your gorilla’s image in this has been lost on you. The blog is about mindfulness, thoughtfulness, or even dignity and I think your image is funny but, I hope it’s not fitting portrayal of
We make things about gender, not Jesus, not God. Adam blames his wife and his helplessness and then God addresses his concerns to put
differences between genders.
Gender is not a problem at creation until men cried about it losing their wits to women. God clearly did not like whiners and knew was Eve was tough enough to take her curse like a champ.
But even prehistoric writers of Genesis knew gender shamelessly favored insecure and impressionable men to use differences over women. An actual gorilla is too busy thinking about his physical differences to appreciate intellectual and faith contributions IRREGARDLESS of gender.
Jesus was not gentler with women! He admired the gentleness and would gladly condemn Queen Salome along with Saul (Paul) for persecuting Jews and Christians.
Jesus identified with women! He was ashamed of men, who like gorillas, take advantage of women when unlike gorillas we have been shown grace just the same as women. See Jesus loved the widow, because the widow raise children that become men and women. And protected the prostitute from men and women that were gorilla-headed enough to think they could better or dare to judge one of his best servant.
Mary Madgalene deserves to be distinguish and she earned that and being a woman went from a curse men took advantage and became a blessing!
See the mercy towards a prostitute was not favoritism but Jesus knew she had the humility to put Jesus first unlike gender-focused people consumed by physical differences.
Jesus like all men was born of women but did not need a father’s seed to be in the House of David. So Eve’s curse of birth pains and her humility was rewarded with Mary’s contribution to the birth of Christ.
The bride of Christ is US ALL, unlike your Tarzan-like gorilla induced suggestions would have us believe.
Imitate women of Christ, William because they were truly humble and true believers! Unlike these masters of child slave- women of Christ or men can love with their all heart and “love their fellow man (woman) as they would love themselves!”
That’s why is low wages are different than indignities, hazards, and lack of worth these poorly paid children experience everyday.
Harambe may have had better social skills and more empathy than you despite Christ’s empathy and grace for your life. I felt sorry for what happened to him because he could not help it.
I’d expect a man to have etiquette and ended their comments with patronizing buffonery. But I don’t expect so much from a gorilla and you’ll treated with hostile admonishment for trying to alienate commenters with your veiled insults. I will not veil my disgust of your Phareseic buffonery.
Go eat a banana with that noise ,William! Blame it on low blood sugar my patron and fellow male.
John 20:
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Lynn, maybe you can answer some questions. Why was Thomas told to touch HIM and Mary commanded not to?
John 4:16 “Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.” Why did HE tell her to go get her husband?
John 2:4 “Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.” Why did HE say this to HIS mother?
Matthew 19:
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Do you not remember these things? Is there Truth, humility or empathy in anything you present; even against those commanded to Love as CHRIST?
Dearest Lynn,
Who needs bananas? Your writing is delicioso. I’ve never been addressed as ‘my fellow male’ before. Lynn is a lovely epicene name, are you sure we are fellows?
No matter, contribute. As you may have guessed, I love attention. Just like Kijoto – the alpha-male gorilla at Henry Dorley Zoo in Omaha who broke the glass charging at zoo patrons last spring. Kijoto ‘s image is my avatar. He always charges at me. I can show up at the zoo after a three-year hiatus and he will side-saunter up and try to scare me. It’s an fellow male thing; we understand each other. I always take it like a champ. “why me?” I understand.
Thank you for your kind words. I hope our correspondence will continue. I always wanted the girls to like me.
Bill
Lynn, my wife says go find another cause to represent.
In 1 Timothy 2:11 the word is woman (gunē). You can add or take away anything you want to but that is not advised:
Deuteronomy 4:2 “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”
Revelations 22:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
CHRIST changed everything. HE made a path to blot our sins for all of us to get to Heaven. We either serve HIM or not. Without HIM we have no choice and no path.
Hahaha
At least your ego is human sized. Your sense of humor makes up for your dim comments. The last one was spot on.
I do not have much wisdom for consistent contributions or enough humility to tolerate dim comments.
I needed a laugh cause carrying angry verses is not an effective argument without laughter.
Include “lol” or “jk” b/c those comments are not funny or agreeable with biblical perspective.
If politically incorrect were a party, you’d probably write its charter. Hmm, I bet the sermonettes after Dallas shooting looked like a veiled insults to paternalistic authorities instead of sympathy for all victims of all gender and race.
Take care, Bill
Conviction
Your verses feel I’m walking into a trap of misinterpretations thats harder to escape because if I overreact.
Mary believed. Thomas didn’t. Some men need to see Jesus eat and touch his hand after he came back to life. Other men and women wanted to celebrate like the Messianic kingdom finally arrived. Both were wrong b/c our faith is flawed and imperfect. We want physical rewards to feed spiritual needs.
Jesus came to free us from death, division, race, gender etc.
The angel notified two women in spite of 12 disciples. Two undereducated and underprivileged women were first notified about Christ’s resurrection. The educated and privileged need a lot more than an Angel’s word to believe Jesus is alive.
Because of Mary’s humility, she doesn’t need to physically touch Jesus but Jesus’ momentary return was not the final celebratory victory either.
John 2:4 is great. Jesus calms his mother’s urgency that the party favor is the least of miracles yet to come. He was compassionate not only to his mother’s human anxiety and thoughtful of his wine drinking host. The Son of Man is nervously minding his time amidst the human drama of a wedding. Jesus knows our needs and worries and says what he says b/c we need to hear that.
John 4. The woman wants spiritual fulfillment and literally, she is currently sleeping with 5 different guys.
The question is not about a husband but why does Jesus care for a Samaritan woman that he knows fornicates. Why doesn’t Jesus say sin no more?
Of course, Jesus doesn’t condone the woman’s sin but he rewards her compassion.
The woman’s compassion is what draws Jesus to the woman at the well. He knew she had 5 men and he knew she was compassionate and humble woman with a willing heart.
By revealing her sin, the woman humbly does not need any more proof to trust Jesus’ word. When men and disciples like Peter arrogantly refuse Jesus’ admonishments.
The woman is looking for a husband, looking for water, but Jesus sympathetically says that he is the man she needs and the living water.
Matt 19:11
The one who can accept this should accept it.
Read my flawed words, conviction. But trust in Jesus.
If there are political biases in my comments, disregard them.
But Jesus is love, empathy, and truth. While William’s comments are nonsense and petty egotism. If Jesus’ love is not found in my comments than disregard.
Your wife is not Mary Madgalene. I would not presume to know her faith. But your wife’s faith is not Mary’s.
You’re defending Thomas when he has as many flaws with recognizing Christ as a Dan Brown novel.
I like Thomas and I’d probably like your wife too. I have plenty reasons to love Jesus, He first loved me.
Mary loved Jesus beyond mere reason. A type of love that spouses themselves can never know.
You’ve read how Mary’s faith was celebrated by Jesus?
I will assume you’ll read about it and celebrate Mary over big headed thinkers like Thomas. Because Jesus did first.
Your questions only point out your lack of creativity. I’m self-motivated enough to point out those are not real questions.
Christ’s hands were real. And you’re using a silly and non-creative scheme to discredit Mary for not touching Christ.
Maybe Mary wore a hijab? silly question.
Do your questions come from a questionable faith to discredit Mary for pseudo-masculine agenda?
That’s not a really question though, is it?
Conviction,
The one who can accept it.
Men and women are different.
Men before and today took advantage. They would kill Mary Madgalene when they slept with her the night before. They would abandoned their wives when women were helplessly dependent on one husband. Women only had one shot to find love.
Men like William thought they were so loving and kind that faith was based on a paternal hierarchy.
19:8
“But I tell you it was not this way at the beginning” paternal hierarchy is legalistic nonsense that support insecure egos unwilling and too prideful to face there own sins.
And whomever can accept a moral and chaste life, than let them accept it. Marriage was not made for men to sample women at Costco or meant to accuse Jesus of gender biases for frail women.
Neither HE, HIS Word or others sent to watch over you in Love are here to trap you. You are the only one that can dig the hole and do that.
I guess you are now judge of Mary and Thomas? If you keep this up, soon we will not need HIM at all.
Is John 2:4 not the desire of physical return in assumption? Is it really a Spiritual need or want? Again, if Mary believed; why was she commanded not to touch HIM.
John 12:
44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
HE came as THE Sacrifice to Save us; not meet worldly wants.
HE did tell the women at the well in John 4:24 “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” Much more than go and sin no more.
In Matthew 19, did you want to be a Nun? Marriage is forever, joined of HIM. GOD knew Abraham would command his family and household. Moses did institute divorce because of the “hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives”. Now you want us to suffer more and call it Grace or of CHRIST?
Are you too good to submit? Are you too good to teach the young women to love their husbands and children, especially if the husband is commanded to Love as CHRIST? Can you not teach them “To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”? Cannot you not exhort the young men to be sober minded in assuming that which is commanded of them? Is this not wanting your cake and eating it to? Demanding the physical being met without meeting the Spiritual requirements? Do you not believe in Titus 2? My wife asks.
There is an easy test.
1 Corinthians 14:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Can you state and actually mean v 34 and 35? Then everyone will know if you are a profit or spiritual; including you.
We Love our wives and honor them as the lesser vessel; they would have it no other way. They understand the ease of transgression and love those that watch over them (1 Timothy 2). This is True strength, HIS given strength.
Hey ‘Conviction,”
Where in scripture do we get the idea that women are inherently “lesser” than men? They are generally not as physically strong from a muscular strength or size standpoint; but, tell us, since when did they become the “lesser vessel”?
1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Genesis 18:
18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
Galatians 3:
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Numbers 30 covers it. The first and last part of Proverbs 31 have the separate commands. The wedding song in Psalms 45 is pretty explicit.
Maybe I should have used weaker vessel; but lesser seemed to note the need that we all have for HIM.
Ok that’s fair. Let my own words convict me instead of your misinterpretations.
Here is some more evidence:
Mary believes in Jesus divinity without question but mistakes him for a gardener. Jesus reveals that he is the Messiah and Mary immediately recognizes he is not a man but God.
Didymus Thomas is faith-less where Mary is faithful.
Didymus Thomas believes Jesus was NOT divine.
That Jesus is dead as door nail.
Faithful Christians do not need to touch Jesus’ hollowed hands they believe in faith with the example of Mary.
Like many believers I have never had to touch Jesus but know I’m here and know God because the perfect Jew died for my redemption. Mary believed and her sins were forgiven.
Self-righteous men like Thomas need MORE PROOF because they faithful to the law of men and NOT to Jesus.
John 20:29 Jesus said to him (THOMAS), “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed
People like Mary are blessed by faith alone but Thomas, like most self-righteous and convinced people, is not blessed
Today, Jesus is known by faith, humility, and belief not fact and authority. We are blessed to have FAITH AND GRACE ALONE.
Thomas needs proof and knowledge. Like Mary, Christians only need Jesus.
I’m a guy conviction.
Celibacy is not job requirement, path to divinity, or an obstacle to tribal reproduction.
Celibacy is the Christian ideal.
Authorities should not enforce celibacy as a condition for others, BUT encourage people to make their own independent “choice” – if they can “accept” it
Divinity is not choice. So celibacy should NOT be seen as purification device b/c only God does that through the death of Jesus.
Finally, reproduction:
Jews were commanded to reproduce. From menstruation uncleanness to penile circumcision as a physical marker of Abraham descendants. Jews HAD TO PHYSICAL REPRODUCE and get married, polygamy, concubines, and tribal marriage and marriages within relatives etc
A Jew had to marry a Jew and enter Jewish seed into a Jewish womb for a Jewish stork to deliver more Jewish boys and girls as religious duty.
1 Tim 2
“11 A woman (or man) must learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman (man) to teach or exercise authority over a man. She (he) must remain quiet.”
Man can be inserted into that verse.
Christianity changed everything. From the asexual ideal of Christ and Paul, that man was not meant to lead Israel but men were brides to Christ.
That daughters and sons of David were of Spiritual and non-Jewish Israel were ALL BRIDES to Christ.
The only humble truth you’ve pointed out is GALATIANS
A non-Jewish Israel does not have “male or female”
Amen Sister, self-righteousness does not discriminate. I think we are all sucked into its hold at some point in time.
My wife, who is very wise and strong in conviction, does state that we need to remember those that are sent by HIM for us. Likewise it is easy to assume or ignore the inclusions of others.
We only need HIM, but HE calls others to watch over us; don’t ever forget those that help HIM and us. Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. Why point out Mary Magdalene? Because she saw the two Angles and still thought HE was the gardener, until HE spoke to her?
Can we condemn Thomas? Did many not doubt?
Luke 24:
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Did he not offer proof, as HE always does? Does this still not leave the question of why Mary Magdalene was told not to touch HIM? Can we without motive or self-righteousness answer that question?
HE did say blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed. We walk by Faith and not by sight.
Your wife is not Mary Madgalene. I would not presume to know her faith. But your wife’s faith is not Mary’s.
You’re defending Thomas when he has as many flaws with recognizing Christ as Dan Brown novel.
I like Thomas and I’d probably like your wife too. I have plenty reasons to love Jesus, He first loved me.
Mary loved Jesus beyond mere reason. A type of love that spouses themselves can never know.
You’ve read how Mary’s faith was celebrated by Jesus?
I will assume you’ll read about and celebrate Mary over big thinkers like Thomas. Because Jesus did first.
No my wife is not Mary Magdalene, I never stated such.
I do not judge anyone, you seem to hold the market on that task.
You seem to assume many things. Maybe you could provide some scripture?
We are commanded to Love as CHRIST, at least one spouse can know the meaning of Love; with HIS help. You reduce HIM in such statements.
I know CHRIST called Thomas a friend. How was Mary’s Faith celebrated by CHRIST?
Dan Brown is a fictitious writer and I take him for such. Read and get your wisdom from the BIBLE. Much safer that way.
7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you,[c] but you will not always have me.”
Better yet, tell me where someone showed a more humbling and submissive act than Mary Magdalene.
She is the model example for all of us to become the Bride of Christ.
Husbands cannot be anymore useful than Joseph in the Birth story. Husbands role are nonsensical. Thomas is liked. I like Thomas and Thomas would probably get along with religious brought men like ourselves. Tommy is my boy for the last time.
And we like Thomas look for evidence, when Mary believed with her humble heart.
Read Luke 7:36-50. Sabbath School 101
She loved much. Men did not appreciate forgiveness without the example of Mary. It took hundreds of dead Christians and talking for Paul. Peter contradicted Jesus only to show his flaws and cowardice.
Men failed to trust and needed more proof than Mary ever did.
Mary! Jk but really there is no comparison. Thomas is weak like us. I would like to read more but arguments are too weak to compare Mary.
Leave it alone.
Your wife has a really stubborn husband?
The woman was Mary of Bethany; not Mary Magdalene (John 12:3). Was CHRIST not worthy of the praise? Were Paul’s sacrifices of no value? Are any of us worthy or able to pay for our sins? How many did Mary lead down that path before HE came along?
My wife says to tell you she has a very devout husband that she would not trade for the world and that all you could ever offer anyone is your own little version of the world. She will pray for you (and me to).
Hi Melody,
I appreciate your very thoughtful article Ms. Tan. One of the definitions assigned to the word, “slavery” is “work done in harsh conditions for low pay” so I’m not sure what Mr. Abbott is referring to above where he believes that equating low wages to slavery as nonsensical, although I found that in the British Dictionary online! Although many people working for low wages are happy to have their jobs doesn’t mean that they aren’t underpaid for their work! Really? Who are you kidding Mr. Abbott? I’ll bet your wife, when working in the hotel industry cleaning would have appreciated a raise especially if her boss was making sufficient $$ to do so. If he wasn’t earning enough $$ to increase her wages then that is a different story. However, tipping people who serve you is an awesome idea. I’ve done it for years as my job incudes traveling.
I’d say keep writing exactly how you are writing Ms. Tan! I think your article was “spot on”!
Hi Melody,
I appreciate your very thoughtful article. One of the definitions assigned to the word, “slavery” is “work done in harsh conditions for low pay” so I’m not sure what Mr. Abbott is referring to above where he believes that equating low wages to slavery as nonsensical, although I found that in the British Dictionary online! Although many people working for low wages are happy to have their jobs doesn’t mean that they aren’t underpaid for their work! Really? Who are you kidding Mr. Abbott? I’ll bet your wife, when working in the hotel industry cleaning would have appreciated a raise especially if her boss was making sufficient $$ to do so. If he wasn’t earning enough $$ to increase her wages then that is a different story. However, tipping people who serve you is an awesome idea. I’ve done it for years as my job incudes traveling.
I’d say keep writing exactly how you are writing Ms. Tan! I think your article was “spot on”!
Terry,
‘Free’ and ‘slave’ are words with meaning. I don’t care about the British Dictionary’s descent into meaninglessness deconstruction of the word, ‘slavery. ‘ Bondage is bondage. You are not free. You cannot quit, you cannot leave. You can be poor and free and you can be rich and a slave. Indentured servants and apprentices were not slaves but they were not free to leave either. The Captain and the Sergent are not slaves, but they too have terms of service they must fulfill.
The hotel maid may hate her job or she might be like it and be grateful for it. The one thing for sure is she can quit and she can be fired. That is the very definition of a free woman. It isn’t slavery. it isn’t even poverty by earlier generations standards. Its called honest work.
Jesus told a parable about those who grumble about their pay. Here is part of the story: When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’ “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go.
Melody,
While your thoughts were carefully presented, I fear you have succumbed to the classic Liberal argument that we, wherever we live, are responsible for all the ills and suffering of people living “over there” and thus must modify our lifestyle so as to not support whatever wrong someone is popular enough to create concern over here. This is done while overlooking the abuses by government that are in front of us and needing correction here.
Several points stand in contradiction of your argument. First, we are responsible for what we are able to influence where we are, not “over there.” Second, upon closer inspection, the claims being made about slavery typically are shown to be multiples of reality. Third, prosperous nations buying resources and products from poor nations typically over time improves their standard of living to the point that the people throw-off oppression and tribalism so they can prosper. Major examples of this are nations in Africa such as Uganda that used to suffer horrible oppression but today are becoming the prosperous business centers of the continent, even eclipsing South Africa.
This world is a very imperfect place and you don’t have to look far to find oppression. So I wish you would focus your attention on the many needs around you so you can be effective here.
Really, William, that’s the best you can do as a Christian is to criticize this young writer for being concerned about what’s happening in the rest of the world? By that logic there should be no missionaries, no SDA hospitals, no help of any kind. People should buck up and make their own good fortune, and if they can’t, tough for them. Around the turn of the 20th century that was called “social Darwinism,” and it’s making a comeback.
Elsewhere on this site you wrote this: “The repeated command of Jesus to His followers was to love one another and there are a thousand ways to minister God’s love to others that are more convincing than any sermon ever preached. It is ludicrous to expect people to listen to our teaching if we’re not loving them and if the power of God is not seen in our various ministries.”
And yet now you seem to want to beg off of any responsibility except for yourself. Who cares about the rest of the world? It’s just a liberal affectation, no? That “looking out for ourselves” idea is very popular right now in America, though there’s not much in Scripture that supports it.
As for accounts of badly-treated employees being exaggerations, I suspect you know better than that.
Loren,
Make no mistake: I’m a big supporter of missions. My year as a student missionary impacted the rest of my life. The problem with being focused on “over there” is that it takes our attention away from the suffering here. That is one of the reasons why the church is shrinking in many places and each time the church in North America adds one member, the population grows by 191.
At the root of social issues is a question of factuality. Just because something is claimed doesn’t make it true. Often what social justice campaigners in the West claim is the oppression of workers in another country is the just their disbelief that someone in a developing country isn’t earning as much as they are, yet what they are earning is far more than they could get in another job– if they could get a job at all. For example, clothing marketers often are accused of using “sweatshop labor” in countries like Haiti, but ignore that an hour of work in a shirt factory pays a worker more than they’ve earned in a week before they got that job.
Yes, slave labor still exists in places, but the numbers claimed by social justice warriors are often disputed by data from international aid groups working in those places. I’ve seen claims from the same Asian country where the claimed number of people in slavery varied 25-fold from one group to another. Which was correct? I’m not sure it is possible to know which was true. Such a difference makes me skeptical of both.
About 1999, we were living in Utah. One of our son’s friends invited him to go to Moab for the Easter Jeep Safari. Ross was careful to take note of the brands of tires being used by the Safari participants and how they performed on the rocky roads near Moab. When he got home, he told me BFGs seemed to be used by the most successful drivers of 4WD vehicles.
I said, “Well, save your money. Maybe, next time you need tires, you can afford a set of BFGs.”
Ross said, “No dad, I don’t think I will. I don’t want to make BFG into a monopoly.” He was about 20!
I’d like to think my wife and I deserve some credit for encouraging our children to care about the global economy.
To the extent that I have sometimes had more money to spend that the average person does (worldwide), I have participated in the political process in an effort to make it easier for the less fortunate to make a living wage.
But I also have this rule for myself: For every hour I spend working on political or economic issues, I spend two hours promoting the gospel.
Whatever we do, let’s encourage each other to do something but avoid saying that what other people are doing is the wrong thing or that it isn’t likely to be effective.
The economic differentiation in the World is startling. Melody, you’ve certainly helped make the truth of this practical to the point of the chocolate I enjoyed last evening.
While the the world is, indeed, lifting itself up world wide economically, and dramatically so over the past 100 years, the ‘bottom billion’ actually closer to 2 billion are getting along on $2 a day.
And millions of them live in the U.S. I was startled when a friend shared this book:
$2 A Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America
“The number of American families living on $2.00 per person, per day, has skyrocketed to 1.5 million American households, including about 3 million children.”
Not shopping at Wal-Mart will not do a thing for the millions of U.S. residents living on less than $2 a day. And for the same reason, won’t help more people live better elsewhere in the world.
Perhaps there will have to be a non-labor-based redistribution of wealth, as labor is increasingly being replaced by automation. ‘Good” jobs are getting fewer and fewer.
How ought we to live is certainly a worthy question. It seems it is no longer as simple as giving a person a fish, or teaching them to fish.
Then there is this amazing book:
Abundance: The Future is Better Than You Think
This author envisions delivering world-class health care that is affordable for people living on $2 a day!
Bill,
The Great Escape: health, wealth and the origins of inequality by Angus Deaton, who won the 2015 Nobel Prize is also worth reading. You are absolutely right, man is dramatically more wealthy by any metric than he was one hundred years ago. And you are right, the Christian is still responsible to care for the poor. But government policies are not a substitute for engaging the poor at a personal level.
I’m afraid there is no substitute for teaching a man to fish. Our obligations to the poor are exactly that personal. Sending a check won’t work. We live segregated lives. I’m guessing Melody Tan lives apart from the poor. Does she share their lot, their bread, their lives? Does she know their children? She needs to worry about that, not the fact that children pick cocoa beans in Ghana.
Go to Africa, serve the Lord there in the guise of the poor. Serve him first where you are – but go and serve Him there also. I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Justice and Mercy are beyond me. I can give another individual my pity and my love.
You can only help humankind one soul at a time. Engage someone needy, serve them. There is no substitute.
Bro. Abbott,
“Inequality” is a Liberal-Socialist concept used to justify taking from those who have and giving to those who do not have while ignoring that it utterly fails to bring people out of poverty. History is packed with examples of millions who got tired of living in poverty, worked hard and became prosperous because their experience in poverty motivated them to improve themselves and their economic status. People will do that if they are motivated by fear of an empty stomach and the discomforts of poverty where government programs to provide them comforts are a powerful disincentive removing that motivation for self-improvement. Thus inequality is as essential prosperity as oxygen is to life. It is not the great evil that Liberal-Socialist liars want you to think it is.
By the way, Nobel prizes for such things as economics are only given to the politically correct.
William Noel,
Angus Deaton’s book looks at the escape from poverty and death that much, if not most, of the world has experienced over the last 100 years and the fact that this increasing worldwide wealth does not eliminate or even reduce inequality. Did you know 100 years ago, in the United States, 20% of all children died before their fifth birthday?
Deaton is more liberal than I am and he thinks inequality is a big problem (I don’t). But you have to read what people are writing. Just because you disagree with a fellow on some points doesn’t mean he is dishonest or his research is corrupt. Angus Deaton wrote a good book and you should read it.
You would surely agree with his conclusions that foreign aid always does more harm than good. This idea of his is backed up with lots and lots of examples. Its good stuff.
Inequality is more than a motivation to work harder. It incubates envy in too many souls. In Congo, if you build a better house and grow a better garden and you start accumulating a few goats. Your cousins and brothers will come and ask why you don’t share. “Why do you paint your house, do you think you are better than us?” You have three goats and we don’t have any; you need to share. And they burn his house down and take his goats. Inequality is so hated, exceptional enterprise is very risky business. 500,000 dead Tutsi’s are a memorial to envy borne from inequality.
I am thankful for young people like Melody who have empathy for the poor all over the world. It makes me hope our church will attract other compassionate members. Sometimes I lay awake at night wondering more about their salvation and the idea that most Christians have that they are lost. I think of Jesus’ parable about the Richman and Lazarus. It was Lazarus who inherited paradise because he suffered much in this life. How we feel about the poor says something about the character we need for heaven.
Yet I cannot ignore the practical information that comes from other writers. We can only help as individuals, and every kind of government will fail if not concerned with its people. Yes, I have been shocked that slavery (hard work and no pay) does exist more than we know in this country. Rich potentates of every culture will take advantage of the poor as they did in the Bible. I think we have heard of them but don’t dare point them out in a PC world.
In the United States, if a person is diligent in his business and pays his taxes, he is helping the poor.
Is that enough?
In the 1980s my wife and I had many opportunities to help people directly. We were able to help some of them. In addition, I developed an idea about a way to solve a problem, namely, that somewhere between 80 and 90% of the money that goes into so-called entitlement programs in the U.S. is paid to the multitude of bureaucrats who administer the programs. One day, as I was explaining to an acquaintance of ours my idea about how to minimize the cost of administering the programs, he asked whether the bureaucrats (or at least some of them) would be unemployed if my idea were to be implemented.
I had what I thought was good answer to his question but my point is that simple answers to complex questions are debatable at best.
P.S. Yes, I still promote the idea I developed back in the 1980s.
An article such as this one always tests our abilities to provide answers to the problem of world poverty. And its antecedent lacks such as education, cultural habits etc. Is the spread of capitalism slowly improving the lot of societies everywhere? Do we take ‘encouragement’ from the China ‘miracle’ in which the rising standard of living of over a billion people has happened almost in a generation, before our very eyes? Is India the next country in which ‘wealth’ will ‘trickle down’ to the masses? And who will be the next country to benefit en masse? Not from the efforts of missionaries, but from the economic ‘development’ of the nation, via godless capitalism.
And that is preamble to my original thought re world poverty: Is there any relevance to this text in John 12. 8 For the poor always ye have with you; …
Serge,
I appreciate your insightfulness on this issue.
Poverty is a complex issue and a significant contributor to that complexity arises from the contrasting point of view between some in developed countries who think people in poor and developing countries are being disadvantaged, abused or enslaved just because they are not being paid the same or receiving the same protections and benefits as they enjoy. This belief that everyone must be treated as they demand leads to many false claims about the working conditions in developing countries. When I was working on my Master’s Degree in Management with a focus on technology development, international labor and supply were major issues that we studied in considerable depth. One of our guest lecturers was from a maker of printed circuit boards that had multiple plants on each of five continents so they had to deal with a wide variety of wage and benefit issues. One “human rights” group accused them of enslaving workers at their plant in Southeast Asia. Then he showed us a video tour of the plant and we couldn’t tell the difference between it and their plant a few miles down the road from the university. Yes, wages were lower than in other countries, but they were far higher than local so the competition for jobs was fierce. Yes, it was naked, profit-focused capitalism, but those wages were improving the lives of the workers in dramatic fashion.
Serge,
First, Marx titled his magnum opus, Das Kapital. You know enough about the Russian and Communist Revolutions to realize they were total immersions in modern state capitalism via terror. To paraphrase Nixon about Keynes, “We are all capitalists now.”
Free markets are not godless or godly. To the extent they are free they revolve more around service than they do capital. Modern economies of scale demand immense amounts of enterprise capital. But service precedes success as surely as greed is a prelude to failure. You do not succeed in business long-term without service. The Donald Trumps of the world notwithstanding. Being well-funded is not the key to success, (but it surely helps, I know).
Free markets and Christian service are very compatible. Serve your customers or bosses as though you were serving God, (at least treat them as you would want to be treated). And you will go far. Everybody wants to trade with you. You will become the trusted steward. None of this precludes failure. Good Christian souls make many errors in the marketplace which prove fatal to their enterprise or careers.
There is a reason capital developed first among Jews and Christians. Trust. You have to trust before you invest. It is easiest to trust if you think the one you’re trusting fears God. Trust is the lubricant that makes free markets work smoothly.
Trust and service are gifts from God.
We live segregated lives. Yes, William A
Our obligations to the poor are exactly that personal. Sending a check won’t work. Yes William A
We can only help as individuals. Yes, EM
Sometimes I lay awake at night wondering more about their salvation and the idea that most Christians have that they are lost. Yes. EM
Simple answers to complex questions are debatable at best. Yes, Roger
Is there any relevance to this text: John 12.8 For the poor always ye have with you. Yes, Serge
Poverty is prickly.
My immigrant grandmother, who raised three children and helped raise four step children, in time retired to 40 acres of sand and woods and a house, for which they paid $1,000 75 years ago when wages were $20 a week. They named their little dream, “Peace and Poverty.”
Does a belief that each individual is responsible for their own salvation make it easier to extend personal responsibility to explain everyone’s economic state?
If one were to sense that God created the World as a whole and that Jesus came and saved the World as a whole, would we better enabled to respond to personal need?
Is fairness an excuse not to love?
Was a homeless person just having showered in our home and now having a meal at our table and subsequently drive to their next stop in life pointless–because she was still homeless, still a comet in the solar system of society?
I hope not.
This is a difficult situation to respond to. I can speak directly to the needy and homeless in Calif. and the State of Washington, here in the USA. Both states have free healthcare, and food programs for the needy and indigent. “All who apply”, whose income is below a stated amount, also receive substantial monthly cash payments, and some subsidized housing.
There are also many local kitchens which serve one or more meals each day, run by churches
and the Salvation Army, and others. In the Sacramento area, i spoke with a few “homeless” souls; one told me he comes in when he needs his teeth fixed and his monthly cash dole. That he doesn’t want housing. It appears that no one who knows the system need go hungry in the USA. Now to other parts of the world the USA has massive programs for feeding and providing medicine and Med care to the most needy, at all times. Unfortunately
many nations are lawless, and the supplies are stolen by heartless armed groups, who sell it to the highest bidder. And tribes still war against each other. The Haiti crisis was responded to by all Global serving groups, and is still today caring for thousands in camps. The Western
world has a loving heart and responds to every Global mishap. We, of course, must answer with our response to the need of our neighbors.
Earl,
No one who knows the system need go hungry in the USA.
There have been times in my life when I would have qualified for “public assistance”. Because I had seen too many other people “dragged down” or “sucked into” the system, I only applied once. That was when my wife was off work because of medical problems. She couldn’t properly care for our two young children and I couldn’t make enough as a piano tuner to hire someone to care for the children. The “application process” was disgusting beyond words. First, there was the runaround. Then the fact that if you ask a question of three bureaucrats, you get at least four or five conflicting answers. Then there was the way we were treated. I wouldn’t treat a dog that way. Fortunately, I had a pad of paper and wrote down most of inappropriate things that were said to me. As soon as I could afford to do so, I took my complaints to elected officials who are supposed to provide oversight of the bureaucrats. I left it at that but I hope some of the bureaucrats got reeducated.
It is easy to see why, once the average person has navigated the labyrinth of the application process, it is much easier to stay in the system than to extricate one’s self from it. Sally and I assumed that as soon as she and I were able to both work again, would could have some hope of not needing public assistance again. For other people, the prospect of subjecting one’s self to all that a second time must be terrifying.
(continued)
(continued)
How many people begin the “application process” only to decide that it would be better to live–or maybe even die–on the street than to be humiliated the way I was?
How many people don’t even know how to begin the “application process”?
Your use of the phrase, “All who apply”, reminds me of an incident in India during the struggle for independence from British rule. A British officer had ordered his men to fire on people who were having a meeting. Dozens died. During the formal inquiry, one of the members of the Inquiry Board asked the officer whether he had provided medical assistance to the injured. He replied, “I was ready to provide it to any who applied.”
“Applying” of course, would have required the Indians moving TOWARD the soldiers who had just shot at them. One of the he Board members responded, “How does a child apply for assistance?”
I’d rather not discuss my idea on this forum but I do have an idea of a way to minimize both the indignity to which I have referred above and to minimize the cost to taxpayers while NOT jerking the rug out from under people who have relied on the “welfare system” for generations.
Anyone is welcome to ask about it or, better yet, tell me about your ideas of ways to accomplish those goals. r.metzger44@gamil.com
Roger,
If the amount of money spent providing public assistance in America as compared to the prosperity resulting from it is measured, the “War on Poverty” has bean an abysmal failure because the majority of those who receive public assistance will remain dependent on it for life. Yet anti-poverty programs keep getting expanded and today record numbers of people are receiving government assistance. In contrast, the one thing that has lifted more people out of poverty and enabled them to become self-sufficient is naked capitalism that is unhindered by the heavy taxes and burdensome regulations that dominate most industrialized nations.
What you are saying is contradicted by the very nature of human beings. Naked unregulated markets lead to cigarette companies marketing to children because they want to hook them early and toxic plastic being distributed because it’s cheaper. The problem with deregulation is human nature and people who don’t care if they exploit others for personal gain. That is exactly what this article is talking about. True in some instances we can’t do much as an individual but at the very least we can call a spade a spade and bring to light those who are being exploited to those who might be able to. Sending love in Christ.
Mike,
That’s exactly the sort of Liberal-Socialist misconception I expected someone to post. Regulation seeks to protect people from hazards, but only complicates life and limits liberty by taking-away options. People have the power to choose. Teach children to value and protect their health, equip them with the skills they need to make critical choices and they will choose to not smoke. Teach them that government has to protect them from all ills and they are at greater risk of consuming what is not good for them because the will not have to evaluate risks and learn critical decision-making skills. What is more, they will be at greater risk of consuming what they are being “protected from” because being forbidden makes it more attractive.
William, while people have the power to choose it doesn’t stop people from exploiting others with misinformation or even without their knowledge. Cigarette companies lied for years about the affects of smoking and they knew what it was doing to people. If sin didn’t exist then you’re ideas hold merit but it does so laws need to be in affect. Companies have dumped toxic waste into peoples back yards to save the bottom dollar harming hundreds of thousands of people. You really want to live in a world where the local mining company can just dump tons of toxic waste in your back door because it meets their bottom line? Sending love in Christ.
Advertising is ubiquitous because advertising is effective. I believe it was the visionary and outspoken entrepreneur Ted Turner who once said (or was told) that the formula to entrepreneurial success is “Early to bed, early to rise, work like hell, and advertise.”
The advertising industry is an industry because advertising has proven to make money for advertisers and helped to grow their businesses. This includes the tobacco/smoking industry and it true for any industry that sells to the general public. Iconic cultural images were created by cigarette advertising that had powerful impacts upon the top line growth of cigarette manufacturers for many decades. Anyone who fails to appreciate or comprehend this reality simply does not understand how retail businesses function, survive, and thrive in American society.
The need for regulating and/or eradicating advertising that was most effective in glamorizing the consumption of a lethal product laced with poison, should have always been obvious once the consumption of said product was discovered to have been hazardous to one’s health.
Does anyone actually believe, for example, that the use of say heroin would somehow be reduced by permitting it to be sold and advertised (and glamorized through advertising)? To the contrary, no matter why or how much the use of heroin may be on currently on the rise; the rise of its use would only be enhanced by advertising and glamorizing said use.
Mike,
If you’re thinking the government ban on the advertising of cigarettes had a significant impact in reducing the number of smokers in America, you believe political illusions. The ban was a popular action driven by public concern over the effects of smoking and it was people wanting to avoid the ill effects that reduced the percentage of the population who smoke. The Number One reason people start smoking is having a parent or other major role model in their life who smokes.
Advertising is not necessary for people to use things that are harmful to their health. A huge example of this is the number of people abusing illegal drugs. Heroin abuse is on the rise and I heard today that more than 2,000 people in Ohio died last year from heroin overdoses. Nobody is advertising heroin.
The point is that they lied to look after their own interests and until then people were trusting the company not to harm them. Additionally, you didn’t even comment on how when companies were unregulated they were dumping things out the back door just to save a buck. Purist capitalism only can exist in theory not reality because of human nature. I believe God puts the laws on the books to protect people from those who go after the almighty dollar no mater the cost. Sending love in Christ.
William,
Not sure what you mean, exactly, by “naked capitalism” but if you mean capitalism with absolutely no restraints whatsoever, I have some questions. 1) Is that politically feasible in the United States? 2) If not, are there ways to move away from the “welfare state” that, even if not as ideal as “naked capitalism”, would be more politically feasible? 3) If it is someday possible to move all the way to unrestrained capitalism, would that be likely to lead to the virtual elimination of a viable middle class–as very nearly occurred in the late 19th century? Given the need for technical (technological) sills in today’s market, would the elimination of a viable middle class have even more dire consequences than it did in the 19th century?
In this as in other aspects of life in a global economy, what we need are people who are thinkers, not merely followers of other men’s thoughts (ideologues). We need problem solvers–people who are wiling and able to address the legitimate concerns of both liberals and conservatives.
How do we (as a society) reward people who are willing and able to do that kind of hard work? Whoever they are, they aren’t being elected to Congress in significant numbers.
Roger,
The simplest description of “naked capitalism” is commerce that is regulated by the market, not government.
How do we get there? That is a topic certain to bring-out all the crazy claims the defenders of Liberal-Socialism can dream of and lead only to fruitless argument, so I will decline to answer that part of your question.
William,
If you have read very many of my comments on the Adventist Today articles and answers to questions in the comments threads, it seems likely that you would perceive me as being conservative enough in some ways (both with regard to theology and with regard to politics) that people who consider themselves themselves progressives would consider me to be a conservative and it is likely that you would perceive me as being liberal enough on some issues (no, I’m not afraid of the label of “liberal”, even if few people today are acquainted with the classic definition of, “liberal”) that people who consider themselves to be conservatives would consider me to be a liberal. I hope you realize that I am not dedicated to either end of the political spectrum or to any political party but that I am dedicated to the kind of problem-solving that is near impossible for political ideologues.
There are more reasons than one to not discuss political strategy on this forum but I hope I have earned enough of your trust that you might consider that avoid impugning the motives of even those people with whom I profoundly disagree and that I realize that there are legitimate concerns being expressed by people at both ends of the political spectrum.
I is my hope, therefore, that you (and others) will be willing to get into the problem-solving mode in conversation via email. Thanks.
r.metzger44@gmail.com
But are we not past the bounds of politics? Should we not call it for what it is?
Why do we call it charity, give it such privilege and yet allow such to serve no purpose in Charity? Why do we so easily allow others to use our tax dollars within Charity for purposes other than Charity?
Why do we allow such individuals assembled, exclusion of liabilities terming them stockholders and then allow those managing to go beyond business. Should they not be treating their employs well and producing the best product at the best possible price? Why should such assembled have voice in civil matters? Do the stockholders and those managing not have their own voice? Do they not have the same rights as the rest of us? The business does not have the right to vote, why voice above that of business? Why do we have speculation without competition? Where did competition and the risk of speculation go?
Why do we elect people and pay them to not do their jobs? Why do we care about their individual ideologies and opinions? Why do they think they have privilege to exercise such and not do their jobs? Why are we silent?
Is this really politics or business? Are these not the things we are suppose to wrestle with?
Conviction,
In our representative government we elect people to offices of trust. Yes, they get paid, but no they technically don’t hold jobs. No one can fire them, because the sovereign people elected them. They might be impeached or recalled, but no one have the power to dismiss them from their office of trust.
We seem to forget this. Your talk about electing people and then paying them to not do their job is confusing, and indeed it seems like most of us are very confused. Technically our elected officials don’t have jobs.
Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
The voters (both shareholders and the electorate) have a lot of collective responsibility. It is all a question of who we are going to trust.
I thought they wanted the job and ran. I thought they made promises we could expect to be kept; or at least effort within such paths.
The process for removing someone, impeachment or otherwise, is still just the process. Incompetence and failure within stewardship of office are always listed as reasons for removal.
I thought they were our servants; not belonging to someone else? Is that not the definition of in position of trust? Is the offset in balance not our ability to assemble and restore balance? Would stockholders allow or accept otherwise?
I guess you are right though; neither voters nor stockholders take responsibility or hold risk for/in/of actions. Maybe that is the problem?
“And as Abraham was at that time the church, and he was separated from the State, in this it is plainly taught that the true separation of Church and State is in the separation of the individual church-member from the State. Besides, it is perfectly plain in itself that where the same individual is a member of the Church and of the State at the same time, there is at once in him a union of Church and State.”
Christian Patriotism, Chapter 2, last paragraph. Right before Separation of Church and State.
To remove individually from the world or State in one thing; but to allow impact to others fails Love.
Roger. Politics is a totally corrupt business in every government globally. The USA being a very young country, has finally caught up with the sleeze that the older nations have, but it is now at the state of the ART. Politicians come and go, but the anonymous bureaucrats who do all the work in the backroom are their for life, and they get their cut of the largess, provided by companies and countries requesting favors through the pandering lobbyists, who mostly are old buddy former Congressmen. There will never be a pure political system
to serve it’s constituents, that is not rotten with greed. Support for those in need is available, but they rarely advertise the programs so the common folk are aware and how to apply. Those who swallow their pride, or milk the system, make out. Why would a man put his family in jeopardy, if he has to work the system to feed and shelter them??
The world is fast becoming a dangerous existence. Hold your hat, as the next 5 years will be roiling with threatened destructive social conditions, as the “ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT”,
under the management of the UNITED NATIONS, with Barak Obama, becoming the new Secretary General, next year. The middle class will continue to fade away. Brother, you ain’t
seen nothing yet.
There is a place for mercy, but there’s also a place for justice. A good husband was trying to explain to St. Peter why he should be allowed to enter the Pearly Gates.
“I came home to my 25-floor apartment and smelled another man’s cologne. I searched but couldn’t find the man. Finally I found the guy outdoors, hanging from his fingertips from the edge of the balcony. I pounded on his fingers with a hammer until the guy let go. The guy fell into the bushes 25 floors below. He was hurt, but not killed. Enraged, I pulled my refrigerator out onto the balcony, and threw it over the edge so it landed on the guy, who died instantly. But I felt so guilty about killing the guy, that I had a heart attack and died. I’ve had a rough time.”
St. Peter agreed. “That really is a rough time. I’ll have mercy on you. Come on in.”
The next guy in line said, “I’ve had a really rough time, too. You see, I was exercising on my 26th-floor balcony, and I fell over the edge. Luckily I grabbed the 25th-floor balcony with my fingertips. Then this guy comes to the edge. I figure he would save me. Instead, he beat my fingers with a hammer until I let go. Then he killed me by throwing a refrigerator on top of me. I’ve had a rough time!”
St. Peter agreed. “That really is rough. I’ll have mercy on you. Come on in.”
The third guy said, “I’ve had a rough time too. Picture this: I was on the 25th floor, hiding inside a refrigerator. . . .”
“A successful husband is one who makes more money than his wife can spend. A successful women is one who finds such a man.”
But is HIS justice not always executed? Is our lack of Wisdom, laziness and need for immediate gratification not always also there? We have empathy, but in many cases never help. We help with things, but never giving ourselves. We seldom fix things within Wisdom. We never gain Wisdom from fixing things. In this we create continuing perpetual problems.
We do not teach them to fish. We bring them home to try and help them; but they don’t want to be here. We arbor and even sanction that without justification; yet call it love. Then we love to talk about it and wonder why things are so bad.
Where is the Love? Where did it go; in any of this? Why do we continue to fail in Stewardship of resources; yet fix nothing? Why do we continue to perpetuate problems requiring more resources? When do we ever learn?
Charity requires sacrifice. Works are not meant to be easy; otherwise they would not be works. HE sacrificed and works within Love for us; does HE not expect the same from us?
Stephen,
As is typical, you have taken a clear statement and twisted it into something else. I never suggested that ads promoting heroin would reduce the public’s demand for it. I was illustrating how demand for certain things exists regardless of advertising and the illogic of Mike’s claim that advertising tobacco would increase that as a public health problem. Such emotional distraction is a powerful tool used by Liberal-Socialism to turn attention away from the subversions of liberty that are being incrementally enforced on people who would not otherwise willingly surrender their rights.
There is nothing illogical about companies who knowing that their product kills and then go and advertise it as a health product for certain ailments and then didn’t stop until the truth came out and they were forced to stop. You only want to see what you want to see and don’t see the reality of what scripture says that majority of people in this world are following the wrong master and as such will make choices that will not only hurt themselves but also others at the same time. Sending love in Christ
William Noel,
No one is suggesting that there is not a certain demand for heroin without it having to be advertised. The point is that whatever demand there is for heroin would be enhanced by the advertising and glamorizing of its use.
The same principle applies to tobacco/cigarettes. There is a certain demand for it without advertising its use; but the demand for it was perpetuated and advanced by the advertising and glamorizing of its use.
There is nothing illogical about that. If anyone doesn’t understand that, they don’t understand how consumer retail demand works in our economy.
Mike,
God only gave us Ten Commandments. Thus far, Obama has signed almost 200 new laws and his administration has put into place more than 20,000 pages of new regulations based on the claim that they will revitalize a weak economy. What is the result? Ever-increasing economic weakness.
God’s ten laws were a foundation that allowed His people to become the economic envy of their neighbors. So, yes, a little regulation is necessary. At the same time, history is filled with examples of nations that have regulated themselves into oblivion.
It appears you have no concept of capitalism as anything other than an evil concept that is threatening to what is familiar to you. Since what is familiar is tanking the economies of the industrialized (and formerly prosperous) nations, I wonder how bad things will have to get for you to see what you defend is the problem, not the solution.
Again, companies have shown by example they cannot be trusted by their actions and need to be regulated because they aren’t trust worthy. I don’t disagree that there may appear to be unnecessary regulations but in most cases it’s been brought about because corporations can’t find a moral compass. Is that the fault of all the companies, no, but they suffer for the sins of others which is a reality of the world we live in. Sending love in Christ.
Mike,
The freedom and liberty to buy and sell is pretty basic. Revelation talks about no one being able to buy and sell without the mark of the beast. The government regulation of almost every transaction is worrisome. How much and in what manner may be paid to whom falls on everybody not just corporations. No wage transaction is supposed to escape government scrutiny and government participation. I’m not talking about selling heroin, I’m talking about pay somebody for work. As an employer, incorporated or unincorporated, you have absolutely no freedom to negotiate terms of employment outside the narrow parameters of what is legally permitted.
The law is so rule-encrusted that everyone is basically breaking some law or regulation everyday. Some know it, many do not. I’ve taken Amy Tan to task for calling low wages a form of slavery. I would say that all these rules force businesses into a form of servitude to the government. Employers go to jail for not collecting payroll taxes. Merchants can go to jail for not collecting and remitting sales tax. Banks are beside themselves with trying to comply with all the new banking regulations.
All of this reduces liberty and freedom. What have we gained in exchange for freedoms?
The law is the law and if you ignore it you are guilty it doesn’t mater if you are a corporation or an individual. Obedience to the law is not servitude. That is one of the lies the Devil has always tried to trap everyone in.
And if you don’t think low wages are a form of slavery look at share cropping and what used to happen in the mining communities with people who couldn’t get by because they had to spend more then what they was coming in from the system around them. The issue at hand is exactly what Christ pointed to in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. We ignore the plight of those who are less fortunate then us while sitting at our dinner tables growing large. Again we might not be able to personally go out and do something but at least by discussing the injustices we can put a spotlight on it and try to get the people who can to do something about it. Sending love in Christ
Mike,
Obedience to God’s law is not servitude, but what you argue is for the progressive imposition of laws that enslave people and turn honorable, law-abiding people into criminals because of their “offenses” against nature, the poor, etc.
If you think low-wage jobs are so bad, one of the richest men I know (worth more than a quarter-billion dollars) was raised in a share-cropper’s cabin on a farm in rural Alabama. He values the lessons he learned about the value of hard work and he respects the lowest-wage workers in his factories as much as the highest. Most of all, that experience motivate him to improve himself. By the way, he’s black. He’s also probably the most generous person I’ve ever met and his gifts to charities are counted in seven figures each year. Should you meet, he would be happy to expose you to the falseness of the politically-tainted concepts you argue.
Melody,
For whatever it is worth, I apologize for waiting so long to read this timely and thought-provoking column. I had prejudged the title, assuming that a piece entitled as such would not actually be about economic exploitation; and that I would be setting myself up for disappointment by reading it. That’s how jaded or warped I have become by my frequent interaction with those who don’t believe that economic exploitation is a reality outside of the contexts of pre-20th century slavery or perhaps some iteration of Marxism—and are certainly skeptical of any notion of economic justice; because to them it threatens the freedom of entrepreneurial types.
I applaud your intellectual fortitude in delving into this and I applaud AT for publishing it. Well done.
Here is the bottom line (no pun intended), there are many who do not believe that the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil. They believe instead that those who are poor are envious of the financial resources of those who are relatively wealthy. So in essence they have converted, inverted, and perverted the “love of money” text to mean that the ‘lack of money’ is at the root of all kinds of evil—which isn’t in the Bible.
William Noel, this isn’t about low wages but this is about subsistence wages. Wages where you can’t afford enough food to feed yourself adequately every day and can’t get adequate housing. Even the lowest paid people in the US don’t commonly know this type of poverty. This is the type of thing that used to go on in the textile mills in New York with child labor early in US history before there was a stop put to it. I don’t have anything against people having money that God has blessed them with but what I do have a problem with is if you have knowledge of injustices that you keep silent about it. There are 2.8 billion people right now who live off of less than $2 a day which you can’t even feed and clothe yourself let alone your family on. There is a documentary on Netflix you should watch called $2 dollars a day to see what these people live like and how many nights they don’t get to eat and many times it is because of what was brought out in the above article. Sending love in Christ.
Mike,
You’re confusing things because you’re all over the spectrum and talking about all things as if they were the same.
For example, you equated low-wage jobs with slavery when slavery is forced servitude for little or no pay where threats of violence and violence are used to prevent a person from escaping. The two are not the same. You keep citing things from the past that no longer exist in industrialized nations as if they were current reality. To wit, you mentioned textile mills. Well, both of my in-laws worked in them early in their careers. Yes, it was hard work, but it was often better wages than they could earn on the farm. Plus, they were able to work their way up to better jobs. I know people who own and operate textile and sewing mills in other countries and they consciously work to make sure they pay their workers wages that are above the local market rates and that they have opportunities for education to improve themselves.
There is no dispute that the bulk of the world’s population lives at a very low income level. They are not the people God has called me to serve because He’s given me plenty of people to serve where I live. If you’re feeling guilty about people living on $2 a day, feel free to do something more to help them than just talk about it and try to make others feel guilty about it.
Ok, my point in citing things from the past is that those things are equivalent to what is occurring in the third world countries today. If you know your in-laws then they couldn’t have been working in the textile mills in NY with the conditions that I am referring to because those only existed pre-civil war. You have an unrealistic view of how things are in other countries and if my wife didn’t have the health issues she does both she and I would be doing more than just talking but we are limited in what we can do from her health issues. I have no issue with people who don’t exploit others overseas but in the poorest of the poor countries the companies that do the right thing are nearly non-existent. Honestly, I wish the Adventist church would step up with programs to help the individuals stuck in this type of poverty but outside of ADRA I don’t know of any programs designed to do anything. I don’t want you to feel guilty either but to realize the harm that can be done by not at least recognizing the evil of those who exploit people for their own economic gain. Sending love in Christ
Mike,
If you’re stretching to citing pre-Civil War factory conditions your argument is based on outdated illusion because even “sweatshops” in developing countries use better technology and safety rules.
If you feel like the affluent are responsible for correcting the supposed abuses happening in lesser-developed countries, you’ve swallowed the lies of Liberalism whole. God doesn’t make us responsible for correcting the wrongs of society. Improving their lives, yes. By what standard do you measure the “improvement?” If you’re wanting the entire developing world to suddenly come up to the same standards that you are familiar with, you’re chasing a mirage because it is impossible. If you’re suggesting just going and giving things to them, you’re going to create a dependent class the same as the public welfare system has done in industrialized nations. However, if you’re going to go somewhere, start a factory and train people so they can be productive and the products they make can be exported, you’re improving their lives. That is how some of the most backward nations of Africa have in two generations been turned into the most affluent nations on the continent.
Seeking economic gain is not sinful, it is one of the major ways God blesses you and gives you the means to help others. Paying someone a prevailing local wage is not exploitation so long as that employment is voluntary and the person agrees of their own free will to accept the wage you offer. But Liberalism wants you to believe a worker in another country is being exploited because they don’t get paid the wage you think they should be paid. That’s pure politically correct male bovine manure.
Mike,
Welcome to the futile world of somehow attempting to consume a bowl of broth with a fork. Some things simply do not make much sense to attempt.
We shouldn’t discuss some things (following Noel’s line of reasoning)—especially things or conditions that point to or identify (or exemplify) inhumanity, injustice, exploitation, or cruelty. After all, such things build character don’t you know.
Stephen, after William’s and Bill’s last replies I am inclined to agree with you. I believe people today are incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of others to try and to understand that if you were in that position what would you want others to do for you. Would you want them to create programs to educate your children to help them out of the cycle of poverty, work on buying good affordable housing where you can live, create political pressure so that wages can actually afford to at least allow you to feed your family each day without having to force you to choose which of your children you can afford to send to school? We as a church should have programs in affect to help people and because we don’t God has raised up other organizations to do what we should be doing. How many more millions would be in the fold today if we would simply do what Christ ask of us in scripture in His own words. Unfortunately, it appears only hindsight will show us these answers because so many are willing to accept the status quo. Sending love in Christ.
Mike,
Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is the heart of the matter. For my part I want people to respect my liberty. I don’t want others doing for me what I can do for myself. I can and I ought to provide for my family and help and bless the poor myself.
You wrote some things above that I think are simplistic and poorly thought out: “Again we might not be able to personally go out and do something but at least by discussing the injustices…” What a cop-out and lame justification for doing something. I mean, ‘how dare you’ is what comes to mind. Think about Jesus memorializing the widow’s mite as the ‘great gift.’ A gift that the Lord says will beremembered forever. All you do is talk and send ADRA a check. You talk about sitting at the table and getting fat. That is what comes from sitting and talking about injustices you can do nothing about instead of blessing the poor, here and now, where you are at.
Amy Tan knows nothing tangibly true about cocoa beans and child labor in Ghana. She just read something. She might know something true about the hotel maids she pities if she would stop and get to know them, but she doesn’t. She just feels its an injustice they have low-paying jobs. What do you want to bet she price-shopped her hotel? She is the reason hotels have to control their costs. She is thrifty and careful how she spends her money. Its not hypocrisy; its muddle-headedness – you don’t examine your own lives.
Mike you also said: “The law is the law and if you ignore it you are guilty it doesn’t mater if you are a corporation or an individual. Obedience to the law is not servitude. “ What about unjust laws? What about wicked, evil laws? It was the law that the midwives put the male infants to death. It was the law a man could sell his slave, ‘down the river.’ You like to discuss injustice, lets discuss the injustice of the government telling me and my boss, exactly what we can and cannot arrange as mutually agreed compensation. Is it really the government’s place? Isn’t it a private matter between two free men?
William Abbot, you think all I do is talk but you don’t know me so you don’t understand why I can’t do anything. My wife has serious medical conditions that vastly limit what she and I can do but I can tell you even with her condition that we have fed the homeless in our community out of our own pockets and handing out the food, bibles and clothes in the streets of our local town as a church ministry with other church members. If she were healthier we would both be doing more to actually help people in third world countries to build a grass roots efforts through the Adventist church to build and fund schools and shelter because we are convicted that God wants His people to do that but it simply isn’t possible given the help I need to give her and the pain she experiences daily.
The statement about laws still applies. You would be guilty of transgressing laws but you have to pick which laws you are going to transgress. The laws of man or the laws of God. Sending love in Christ.
Mike,
My comments are directed towards your and Melody’s judgments, not your actions or inactions. The self-righteousness you feel in condemning others as unjust is foolishness. You are supporting new laws that will injure the very people you want to help. You will force employers to pay higher wages and that will force employers to eliminate jobs. The poor need those jobs. If they were truly your neighbors you would know that.
I did accuse Melody of not making the poor her neighbors. I can’t believe you would stay in a hotel and feel guilty about the low wages paid to the staff, imagining the hotel maids were enslaved. I thought it was nonsense.
Just be their friends, truly make them your neighbors. That is righteousness. Don’t try and make their boss pay them more. That is doing something to make you feel good about yourself. It isn’t compassion or pity for the poor.
I don’t judge you, Mike. I ask you to refrain from judging others. I am imitating Christ.
William Abbott,
Let me ask you a question. Do you really believe that in places where American-owned companies pay $2/day, that those particular jobs would necessarily be eliminated if the employer paid much more than that…say $5 or $10 or $15 per day (U.S)? (I acknowledge that there is obviously some amount at which a company cannot afford to pay it employees for given positions.)
Let me ask another question. Do you really believe that those who feel a need to take a job paying $2/day are indeed as a “free” as those who can afford to open a plant in a country wherein they can pay workers $2/day (US)? Just asking…
I can perhaps prejudge what you will say; but then maybe I’d be wrong.
Stephen,
Forks help you eat the meat of reality. Spoons are better for the clear, nutrition-free soup of Liberalism.
“Willingly endangering the lives of young children so we can enjoy a chocolate bar is not “acting justly””
Idealism is totally out of hand in the so-called, Christian spirituality. There is absolutely nothing in the world you do or participate in that is “acting justly” in this world of sin. Slave labor is all over the world from China, India, Africa and every other part of the world. To use the issue of enjoying a chocolate bar because of the slave element in having one, is in one sense “off the wall” in seeking some kind of “civil justice” in a world of sin.
You can’t drive your car that has not been produced on some level by slave workers. Nor anything else you have or buy in the free market. Get over it and quit “cry babying” all over the place about any single incident or product.
It’s OK to point out the fact, but to pretend it is some isolated issue that is not world wide and can be remedied by some “civil justice” activity is far from the reality.
Bill,
You wrote: “You can’t drive your car that has not been produced on some level by slave workers.”
Liberalism whats you to believe anyone, anywhere in the world who doesn’t earn labor union wages is somehow oppressed or even a slave. That’s just plain delusional. So let’s be factual and stop speaking of them as “slave laborers” when they’re just earning lower wages than where we live, but which often are higher than any other wage they might earn in that country.
Mike,
It is the curse of relative affluence, or of that of being born and raised in an affluent society, that makes some think that their relative affluence is due to circumstances of their own doing—as opposed to the unmerited favor of God.
Some cannot comprehend that they have had no say in the “prevailing” circumstances into which they were born; but are nonetheless quite cognizant of their privilege—and are disdainful and distrustful of anything that perceivably or conceivably threatens the status quo insofar as their privileged circumstances are concerned.
This is perhaps in large measure why Jesus said what He said in Matthew 19:24. We note that he did not say that it is difficult for a poor man to enter into the kingdom of heaven; but made a point to specify that it was difficult for a rich man to do so. Psalm 37:14-16 is particularly instructive in this regard.
“Whoever succors the poor, or sympathizes with the afflicted and oppressed, and befriends the orphan, brings himself into a more close relationship to Jesus.”—Review and Herald, August 16, 1881.
It seems as though some, including Melody, sympathize with the poor and understand that many in other nations are economically oppressed (and/or exploited) for our material benefit. Others think that this is liberalism, which it literally is.
Hang in there!
Stephen,
Biblical charity is the antithesis of Liberalism. The Biblical model found in the Mosaic laws is me giving to someone I meet who is in need, befriending them and lifting them out of poverty so they can have their self-sufficiency restored and faith in God built-up. Liberalism is the government demanding ever-increasing amounts from your pocket, lying about it being given to the poor, then never alleviating the poverty they claim to be relieving. Worse than that, it created a dependent class in society who are then used to justify taking more from those who have while destroying faith in God.
What puzzles me is how you can reconcile your claim of believing in God with supporting a political philosophy that is devoted to destroying faith in God.
William Noel,
I really don’t know how many times I must tell you this; but it matters not a wit to me whether you believe that I am a Christian or an atheist. I am not trying to convince you of anything about me; so whatever puzzles you about me is none of my concern.
This isn’t about me, but I acknowledge that this forum is about what we write; and whether or not what we write makes sense logically, and is provably factual and truthful—or not.
I have come to realize that to many white folks in the United States—white guys in particular, and particularly in the American South—the word liberal or liberalism is a pejorative; and for a white person to be considered liberal by those (particularly in the South) who consider liberal to be derogatory label, it is somewhat like a black American considering another black American to be an Uncle Tom.
But I don’t see any dictionary definition of ‘liberal’ to be anything negative or derogatory; nor do I see any synonyms that are in any way negative or derogatory. In fact, just the opposite appears to the case; wherein all of the definitions and synonyms are of a positive and complimentary nature.
Your argument is with the concept that it is difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom; and with the idea that the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil. You think it is evil for someone making $2/day for an honest day’s work to believe that he/she should get more than that for the labor that they provide; whereas I believe that it is evil to pay someone $2/day for an honest day’s work, when those who are making that much are not earning enough to escape abject poverty, and when the person paying them that amount is becoming fabulously wealthy by so doing.
One of us is right and one of us wrong. I’m comfortably with that.
William, this is my last thought on this matter and you can respond or not but social security, welfare and disability benefits were all established in the 1920s because of the Great Depression when people were starving in the streets. First, those people were struggling in the streets because banks went after the almighty dollar and invested everyone’s money into the stock market. Regulations were put into place afterwards to stop that but not until it was to late for everyone who had been crippled by it. Next, the people who did have money kept that money under lock and key and didn’t help and only thought of themselves. The government (I believe at God’s direction) stepped in to keep people from starving. Are there still true needs still being met by these programs, yes, my wife being one of them who has gone through 3 back surgeries and simply will never be able to work again in any capacity. Are there people taking advantage of these programs. Again, yes, my sister in law who uses the money given to her from welfare to buy alcohol and drugs. The problem is that when people aren’t obeying God’s directions then He is going to find a way to meet the needs of those who need it. Is there waste produced in the process, yes, but again there are consequences when God’s people don’t take the actions they should be taking. God isn’t going to sit on the sidelines while people suffer. If you really want to end “liberalism” start getting a grass root effort to really address the hard issue because I believe that if God’s people take up these issues then government’s will be able to step down from the programs that currently exist. If not stop complaining about what is in place to help those who are less fortunate and those who sympathize with their plight. Sending love in Christ.
Mike,
Your philosophy needs a dose of history. Who was it that rigged the laws to create financial disruption in the 1920s? Liberals. Who was it pressed for the passage of laws that drove the American economy into the darkest days of the “great depression” of the 1930s? FDR and his Liberal supporters. What has been sucking the vitality from the economies of the industrialized nations, limiting growth and driving them into recession, if not depression? The policies of Liberalism. It is a pernicious disease that convinces adherents that they are supporting something good while incrementally nibbling-away at their liberties and reducing them from prosperity into the poverty of serfdom while enriching their friends. Why are the richest in America typically supporters of the Liberal-minded who are in power? Because they’re making money from the rules being written to favor them.
The Bible teaches us to treat all others fairly and honestly in all of our dealings, but Liberalism teaches that the ends justify the means and that there are no moral limits on what you do. Thus Liberalism stands in stark contrast with the principles of God. Instead of being kind like God, the knee-jerk response of Liberals is to question the motives and moral integrity of critics just as Satan did against God in Heaven. To a Liberal the ends justify the means, so no degree of venom or falsehood is off limits in attacking anyone who stands in their way. The contrasts between God and Liberalism are so stark that a blind man could see them. Liberalism is not good because it against God. Period.
William Noel,
Perhaps, just perhaps, for your thinking for one reason or another you are not responsible for the way that you think; and are therefore not to be held accountable for what you write.
On the other hand there are other readers and participants of this site—who are somewhat ideologically allied with you—whom I know are responsible for the way that they think; so when you state some of the inaccurate things that you say, or when you come to some of the illogical conclusions to which you arrive; some of these readers and participants should be asked to defend your statements and conclusions.
For example, logically speaking, your statement that “Liberalism stands in stark contrast with the principles of God,” or your assertion that “The contrasts between God and Liberalism are so stark that a blind man could see them,” or your conclusion that “Liberalism is not good because it against God. Period,” ‘logically’ means that the opposing (or opposite) political ideology, Conservatism, is aligned and in synchronization with the principles of God—and is good because it with God.
If Liberalism is against God, then that which opposes it in the arena of ideas and political engagement is for God, and/or with God.
To you political ideology is a religion—and Conservatism is good religion. Those who oppose good religion—i.e. Liberals and Liberalism—oppose God.
Based on Noel’s statements, does anyone doubt or question this assessment of Noel’s position?
Should we not open the envelope? Should an employee not Love and appreciate a Loving employer? Should an employer not Love and appreciate a Loving employee? Should both of their goals not be to create the best for the least? Should both not be a part of a bigger citizenship; to look out for others?
Are we built on these simple principles anymore? Do we teach this to our kids or anyone else anymore?
Is sin not sin, whither it be conservative or liberalism? Should we be conservative liberals or liberal conservatives? Does the BIBLE not teach that anything outside of these bounds are kind of “out of bounds”? Can we really be on the same page, without opening the envelope and finding the page? I think we might find we are closer together than we ever thought; especially if HE leads us all.
Stephen,
I will answer your questions, if you would answer mine first.
Why does one person employ another? Why doesn’t everyone work for themselves? Why are thee employees and employers? The bible says quite a bit about how the hired man is to be treated, Jesus Christ tells an interesting parable about unequal pay and hirelings, why is the scripture silent about minimum wages? It certainly isn’t silent about when wages are to be paid: daily, before the sun sets.
William Abbott,
With respect, why are you copping out of the straightforward questions that I asked in direct response to things that you’ve said?
In asking my questions to you, I readily acknowledged the reality that “there is obviously some amount at which a company cannot afford to pay it employees for given positions” for the equally obvious reason that the primary purpose of an enterprise is to make money as opposed to losing money. For-profit businesses are in business to make profits; which is a reality that is not only implicit in my acknowledgement; but also one that has no bearing on my direct questions to you (based on things that you have written on this very thread).
Stephen,
If by logically assuming that the opposite of Liberalism must be in favor of God, and since the political opposite of Liberal is Conservative, that I mean Conservatism is doing God’s work, you are making a wild and false assumption because modern Conservatism is little more than watered-down Liberalism. American politics has wandered far away from the principles in the Constitution and is perilously close to fulfilling the prophecy Ellen White made about in the last days America would abandon every principle of the Constitution on which the nation was founded. What puzzles me is how you could so blindly ignore that Satan is using your support for Liberalism to help make that happen.
This much is clear, William Noel, try as you might, there is no escaping the logical reality that if Liberalism is in opposition to God, etc. then that which opposes Liberalism in the arenas of public policy and political ideology must therefore be in alliance/alignment with God.
Whether you think that (conservatives or) Conservatism is sufficiently conservative for your tastes at any given point in time (like this one) is absolutely irrelevant. The point is that if you consider liberals and Liberalism to be against God, then you must consider conservatives and Conservatism (when practiced to your satisfaction) to be ‘for’ God (assuming that you are ‘for’ God).
The logic of that reality is inescapable. Unfortunately—even tragically in a real sense— political ideology is religion as you perceive and debate it. Conservatism, when practiced as you prefer, is good religion. It theoretically opposes that which opposes God. You simply lack the courage of your convictions to admit the logically indefensible (which is that Conservatism is good religion).