ethics

What about emphasizing personal responsibility when helping the poor?

Posted by

1

Giving his opinion of the discussion at Nathan Calquhoun’s blog, Dan posting at the City of God also came down against the Olympics, though not as hard as some others.  He agrees that it is also just a party for the rich, but the insufferable thing is that we taxpayers have to pay for the Games, and then told we have to like the games:

What is really oppressive about the Olympics is how we are all supposed to like it. I mean rich people also have private playgrounds in places like Macao or Monaco but we aren’t all expected to embrace these playgrounds like we are the Olympics. It would be nice if some Olympics organizers would just own up sometime and say “look, we’re bringing in a bunch of amateur athletes because they’ll act as free entertainment for celebrities and captains of industry, by the way, your taxes pay for this so we’ll let you watch at home too.”

I wrote the following comment:

________________________________

Would you say that the sin of the Olympics’ rich and powerful is one of omission, of ignorance, or of willful disregard? I am trying to see how the new Pharisees conceive of sin. I guess that the most important thing is that the chief sinners are the wealthy and powerful, because they like to have their exclusive parties (like smoking stogies and drinking champagne and beer on the rink after winning the gold medal?).

I don’t see how any of this protesting helps. To me it appears as heavily motivated by the politics of envy. As my friend explained to me this morning, the real problem is that the money spent on the Olympics should have been spent to help the poor, provide housing, lasting jobs, etc. This strikes me as envy. One begrudges how the funding is spent. George Will recently said at CPAC that envy is the one deadly sin of the seven from which the sinner does not receive even momentary pleasure.

Finally, I suggest the politics of envy does nothing to help the poor because it places the responsibility for their situation on others. Walter Williams has explained the formula for avoiding poverty as such:

Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior.

Williams’ formula emphasizes personal responsibility. It seems to me that having the Olympics or not having them will neither help nor hurt Vancouver’s poor. Spending the money on the poor instead of on a big international circus will not help the poor. For the problem of the poverty will not be solved by throwing money at it. Liberal democracies have been throwing money at poverty for decades now, and the problem has not gone away or even become less. Many, myself included, believe that welfare has only exasperated the problem.

We live in Canada, not Haiti or sub-Saharan Africa where there is little hope of escaping endemic poverty. Many millions of poor have come to North America, including my own forebears (on both sides of my family), and have enjoyed the freedom to make a very nice life here. They were not, for the most part, oppressed nor discriminated against because of their poverty but allowed to work, to study, and to realize their potential.

Source, Walter Williams’ article:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4223

Protest the Canadian Women’s Hockey Team!

Posted by

1

We have damning evidence that the overly competitive Canadian Women’s hockey team, which shamefully won the gold medal, beating out all other competitors by wide margins and flaunting their superiority the whole time, have spent money on booze and cancer causing cigars. This money should have been given to the poor and homeless living in the streets of Vancouver.

Oil is a righteous investment

Posted by

1

A lot of religious people, especially environmentalists (but even some Christians), consider petroleum a sin.  By contrast, here are some reasons that oil is a righteous investment:

(1) Oil is a plentiful energy source which was created by a good God who made all things for our benefit (Genesis 1-2).

(2) Oil is the energy of choice which fuels production in world’s strongest economies and helps to provide for the general well-being of billions of people.

(3) Oil is was provided by our Creator as an extremely efficient fuel source, unlike ethanol and other biofuels which derive from grains and other foods, which God provides to us for food because he loves us.  The use of biofuels has led to an increase in global food prices which have greatly hurt the poor.  The consumption of oil and other petroleum products such as natural gas and coal have no such negative consequences for the world food market.

(4) Oil is proving to be a renewable resource and not a fossil fuel.  Therefore, it is not something that we will run out of; we will not see Armeggedon because we run out of oil, but perhaps if we are not allowed to exploit sources of oil that we know exist.

(5) Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.  Therefore, there is no substance to the main argument against oil–the fear that the planet will turn into a ball of fire.

Leftist, anarchist Christians against the Winter Olympics in Vancouver

Posted by

0

My friend the Brooks pointed out a conversation at the blog of Nathan Colquhoun, in a blog post, “The Enchanting Economics of Death, Spectacular Resistance, and the Pursuit of New Life: a reflection from the streets of Vancouver“, in which Colquhoun repeats the anxious rant of an anonymous protestor at the games.  It has aroused a discussion in which Dan Oudshoorn, a.k.a. Poserorprophet, insults everyone who disagrees with him and basically condemns wealthy Christians.  Poser offered on his own blog another post by the same anonymous poster called “F— the police”.

Many of the institutions with which I do business, Royal Bank, oil sands, Latin American mining companies, TD Bank, were mentioned.  So I decided to write the following comment against Poser, against the anonymous Poster, and against the generally anarchist marxist tendencies among certain Christians today:

This conversation really baffles me. The other day on his blog Poser said that he needed to raise funds for his new job: amongst whom was he going raise this funding this except ordinary Christians who have money and jobs? He studies at Regent College which is richly endowed by wealthy Christians. He then condemns them all with a sweeping, Bourgeois Christians: “my friend is now being vilified by a bunch of bourgeois Christians who are far removed from the struggle for justice”.

I don’t have a particular ax to grind about the Olympics but the disconnect to me is related to the “economics of death”. Besides the poor Georgian luger, who has died? When Christians talk about the culture of death it is easy to see who has died, 100s of millions of babies. But “economics of death”? That is a play on the term “culture of death”, and yet it is hallow. Who is dying? Who did TD Bank kill that they deserve to have their windows smashed? And for that matter, just because RBC is behind the oil sands, why is that so bad? If it weren’t for oil, you poor folks would have to walk everywhere you go. That’s fine if you live in some African country where it is warm all the time, but some of them work 18 hours a day carrying firewood on small carts for $3 a day. I’d much rather burn oil sands in my Toyota than die at 38 of exhaustion in that kind of misery. But walking everywhere you go is not really an option for living in Canada, particularly in winter.

What are the protesters doing to create life. Anyone can smash a window. The thief comes to steal and kill and destroy. Vandalism is theft by destruction. That is not what Jesus did. He overturned the tables to prevent the moneychangers from stealing from the people of God and thus charging them to worship God which the moneychangers had no right to do.

Finally, the poster refers to destroying the structures of the economics of death, forewarned that others who have done this (communists around the world) have created misery. Yet Canada is one of the greatest countries in the world and the envy of many millions who long to have an opportunity to come here to live, to study and to raise their families. Yet all the protesters, the poster, and Poser can think about is how to destroy what other people envy. Is that not a sign of their own envy? There is something deeply wrong with that. TD Bank, by employing thousands of people, by extending mortgages to allow young couples to buy their first house, and by providing a safe place where people can put their investments, has done more to promote the welfare of the many than these sad anarchists. That is why I am a proud, bourgeois Christian stockholder of TD.

“In order to construct a society that is more just, less just ways of organizing life together must be destructed. This should be obvious.” This is an extremely scary prospect. When people who hold such views have succeeded only misery results. Please name one case where death was not the result of destruction of capitalism. 100,000,000 people were killed by communists in 20th century alone. Is that not enough?

Signed, an investor in oil sands and Latin American mines, shopper at the Bay, a proud-soon-to-be Canadian, Bourgeois Christian, who owns more than one pair of shoes.

Poser responded, and I replied:

  1. dan says:

    Shame on you, Peter. That’s my cue to exit this conversation.

  2. P. W. Dunn says:

    Poser, your response confirms what one of the professors at Regent told me a few months back: he said there is among the students a new generation of Pharisees. This reminds me of Matt 23.4: “They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.” You leave in a huff, telling me to be ashamed, but you fail even to explain for what things I should be ashamed or even to give a single counterargument. I can only suppose it is because I am a proud-soon-to-be Canadian. Or is it just because I am wealthy, owning two pairs of shoes?

Is debt sin?

Posted by

7

I stumbled upon an interesting article today called, “Debt is Sin“.  The author, Bob Mallory writes:

The fact is, everyone knows that debt is wrong, and no one refers to it as if it’s a good thing. Yet the further we seem to wade into financial bondage in America, the more our Christian financial counselors and pastors falter when it comes to the Word of God.

Let’s cut to the chase: Debt is a sin. It’s a sign of a covetous heart, and not trusting that our Heavenly Father will provide us with everything we need. Since American Christians worship an insufficient savior, they turn to credit to purchase the things they want. The Scriptures are consistently negative when discussing financial debt for believers. It’s never neutral or positive, as many financial counselors will tell you.

He lists a set of scripture verses as proof texts:

Exodus 22:25-27; Deuteronomy 15:6; Deuteronomy 28:12; Deuteronomy 28:43-45; Leviticus 25:35-38; Nehemiah 5:1-5; Psalm 15:5; Psalm 37:21; Proverbs 6:1-5; Proverbs 11:5; Proverbs 12:9; Proverbs 22:7/1 Corinthians 7:23; Ezekiel 22:12; Matthew 5:42; Matthew 6:24; Luke 6:34-36; Luke 16:13; Romans 13:8; 1 Timothy 6:6-10; 2 Timothy 3:1-5.

Now first of all, many of these texts warn against covetousness and the love of money (e.g., 1 Tim 6.6-10; 2 Tim 3.1-5; Matt 5:42; Matt 6:24), but not against debt.  Others, to be sure, counsel the Christian to avoid debt (Rom 13.8), explaining that debt puts the person into virtual slavery to the creditor (Proverbs 22), and naturally, it was a blessing that Israel was to be a creditor nation, not a debtor nation, unless it sinned against the Lord, in which case they would become a debtor nation (cf. Deuteronomy).  Proverbs 6.1-5 actually counsels against providing security for someone else’s debt.  Finally, in Israel, it was against the Torah to charge another Israelite at interest.  But do these passage all say that debt is sin, no matter what kind of debt it is?

First, I would suggest that this way of thinking is basically a “fundamentalist” approach to the Scripture (see this post) in that it attempts to create a new law for Christians; that if the Christian followed that law, he would be on the path of blessedness.  It may be true that this path of avoiding every form of debt could be blessed.  Certainly in our current recession, had you avoided debt, you could be far ahead of those who were leveraged to the hilt, such as stock holders who received margin calls in 2008 and 2009; or Lehmans and Bear Sterns, which were highly leveraged investment firms.  Such advice might have seemed prescient for such people.  However, I approach the Bible differently.  The Bible contains wisdom and advice, which is bound to a particular context.  The crucial task of hermeneutics is to determine the principles taught by the Scriptures and to attempt to apply them in new cultural contexts today (see Klein, Bloomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, chapt. 11) through the help of the Holy Spirit and the accumulated wisdom of the church through the ages.  Thus, the categorical use of biblical advice as the new Torah is not a good way to apply the Bible today.

Contemporary financial advisers correctly distinguish between good debt (cf. this post) and bad debt. The effect of bad debt is that the debtor becomes a slave to debt payments.  The effect of good debt is the opposite.  It leads to profit and wealth.  I would agree that wisdom teaches us that bad debt should be avoided, and it is a sin if it is accompanied by greed and a lack of self-control.  A poor person who borrows in order to survive is probably to be pitied rather than called a sinner; the Bible often defends such people and condemns those creditors who exploit the poor.  However, people who accumulate credit card debt to buy consumer goods because they can’t defer gratification have a problem, not too dissimilar from alcoholism.  It is a spiritual problem related to a religion of consumerism.

But there is also good debt.  Good debt is money borrowed to make a gain or profit.  An example would be the borrowing of money to purchase a high yield stock.  As long as the interest rate is lower than the yield and the stock maintains its value or experiences a capital gain, the debt creates a profit for the debtor.  Another example would be the purchase of a house to live in or to rent out;  as long as the mortgage holder saves on rent, builds up equity through the repayment of the principle and capital gains, this is good debt.  Another example would be the line of credit that a business has in order to fill orders.  Without the line, they would not be able to make sales without first taking a large percentage of the cost from the buyer, which is actually a form of borrowing from the buyer instead of the bank.  This is not always convenient. So businesses will often borrow money from the bank in order that they do not have to charge their customer in advance.  Businesses also have what is called “net-30” or “net-90” etc.  This means that they extend credit to their customers of 30-90 days; the customer in turn has borrowed because they don’t have to pay for it up front–they can then in turn sell the item to their clients and pay their supplier only after they themselves receive payment.  Without these different kinds of debt, businesses today would come to a virtual standstill.  Our current economic system puts creditors with capital together with businesses and people who need it–banks serve as the go-between between these two parties, and everyone is supposed to make a profit from such transactions.  The question then is:  Would the Bible forbid categorically such transactions?  Is it so clear that good debt is sin?  I don’t think so.  My wife’s company which was started by my father-in-law about 45 years ago has debts;  it provides jobs to 25+ employees.  Now if we decided that it was sin to take on debt, undoubtedly we would have to close the business, and all those employees would lose their jobs.  I think it is better to use debt wisely and to continue to provide good jobs with benefits to these hard working men and women.  [Note it would be eventually possible to use retained earnings instead of bank credit to make these transactions–but Canadian tax law makes it very expensive to retain earnings in a company of this size].

But is there biblical support for my position?  Let’s consider the parable of the talents in Matt 25.14-30, which is the “canon within the canon” of this blog.  Jesus teaches that a man going away on a journey lends his capital to three of his servants, with the ostensible purpose that upon his return, he will receive a rate of return on his deposit.  These three servants receive 5, 2 and 1 talent respectively.  This is an  enormous amount of capital:  a talent is 6000 denarii, and a denarius is probably about 2-4 days wages at minimum wage in ancient Palestine.  So the man who received 5 talents had enough capital to pay 60,000-120,000 people minimum wage for one day; this would certainly be enough to start a business of some kind.  The servant with five talents received the equivalent of well over half a million US dollars.  The first two servants were entrepreneurs who were able to double their master’s money during that period. They would receive their reward for their diligence and their willingness to risk.  The one who received one talent was afraid of his master and of risking the capital, and so he buried the talent which equals about US $87,000-174,000 (considering $7.25 per hour as minimum wage). Imagine the master’s wrath!  He lent the wicked servant an incredible sum and the man buried it.  So the master says that he should at very least have given it to money lenders so that if he himself wasn’t going to risk it, they would at least find a suitable placement for the funds, and pay him interest on the money.  Jesus called this man wicked, and he received his reward (to be cast in outer darkness).  So Jesus teaches us that the wise risk of capital is not a sin; the sin here is the failure to put at risk the capital that has been lent.

This parable is amazing on so many levels.  But at very least we must acknowledge that Jesus commends those who are not afraid to take risks.  But he does not even tacitly condemn creditor/debtor relations in this parable.  He acknowledges them as facts of life and uses them to illustrate our relationship to the Kingdom of God.  We are debtors before God, because it is He who has made us his regents and lent to us his capital to see what we will make of it, and we need to use what we have from Him profitably so that on the day of reckoning our master will commend us as good and righteous investors.

I would like to conclude by making the following points:

(1) The New Testament is not the new Torah.  Its principles need to be applied to new contexts with judicious wisdom and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

(2) We need to distinguish between good debt and bad debt.

(3) Jesus does not condemn the wise use of good debt, but rather, told a parable in which standard business practices illustrate our indebtedness to God.

(4) In our culture, not all debt that leads to profit making is a sign of greed, for it can be vehicle for creating wealth (which is a blessing) and providing jobs.

(5) The wise servant is the one who can thrive in the circumstances in which he finds himself.  Thus, we must ask, given the current economic environment, culture,  and tax structures, how can we Christians learn to thrive and create wealth?