novus•lumen

A month ago I began a periodic series of posts highlighting conversations I have with a very bright, curious and astute college friend I mentor. He is a junior psychology major and loves to wrestle with the scriptures and theology, and I have the huge privilege of wrestling with him and wading through his questions, doubts, and fears. Here is an email he sent me a week ago and my subsequent response.

A few days ago, I became aware of the importance of Judgment, that YHWH will Judge us after death. Now, I know that legalism is something Jesus came to at least re-balance. But for some time now I’ve believed that Jesus came to eradicate legalism. So I guess my question is: To what extent did Jesus come to eradicate legalism? Does He want us to obey the Law merely because it is best and healthiest for us and our relationship with YHWH? That would be most consistent with the idea that Jesus came to eradicate legalism. Or does He want us to obey the Law simply because we should be obedient to YHWH? This doesn’t seem true to me. But could the truth lie in an integration between the two? A balance between obeying the Law because doing so is obedient to YHWH and good and healthy for us and our relationship with Him?

Keep reading →

Popularity: 10% [?]

This is my Confession on the Doctrine of Humanity and Sin. I wrote it for my Systematic Theology 2 class, and thought I would share it here.

Creation
I believe the Creation event was a purposeful act of God to bring into existence a Reality for His glory, reflection, and interaction, a Reality that was formed from nothing; the universe and all that exists therein was created on purpose with purpose by the Creator. This act of creation was a real time-space event that set the universe and all its processes in motion through the Will and Word of God. (Gen. 1 & 2; Col, 1:15-17)

Keep reading →

Popularity: 10% [?]

Apparently my blogging drivel inspires some people, because my fellow Scriber has dubbed my one of a handful of subversive bloggers! Here is how he defines a subversive blogger:

Subversive bloggers are unsatisfied with the status quo, whether in church, politics, economics or any other power-laden institution, and they are searching for (and blogging about) what is new (or a “return to”) - even though it may be labeled as sacrilege, dangerous, or subversive.

I’m honored (thanks Jake!) for this little act, because I’ve begun to wonder why the hell I should continue with this thing. I mean it’s been a good space at times to verbal vomit my frustrations and thoughts, but as of late the ink well’s been bone dry and I’ve found little inspiration for continuing with this thing called writing, if you can call it that.

So I guess this act of encouragement has come at the right time…

I nominate the following:

1. Jesus the Radical Pastor by John Frye, my friend and mentor
2. Real Live Preacher by RLP
3. Swinging From The Vine by fellow Scriber Makeesha Fisher
4. Calacirian by fellow Scriber Sonja
5. Internet Monk by blogging stud Michael Spencer

The rules of participation are pretty straightforward:

1. If you are tagged, write a post with links to five subversive blogs.
2. Link back to this post on JakeBouma.com so people can easily find the origin of the meme.
3. Optional: Proudly display the “Subversive Blogger Award” somewhere on your blog (images below) with a link to the post that you wrote.

And as Jake says, the award is meant to be encouragement to keep blogging, so I hope I encourage these five to for sure keep doing what they do, because they kick ass!

Popularity: 12% [?]

This Friday series is based on a paper I wrote for my Systematic Theology 2 class. It was a reaction piece to the book The Good of Affluence , by John R. Schneider and represents my own personal wrestling with the contemporary expression of capitalism: consumer capitalism.

The Series
1. Introduction
2. Is Affluence The Point
3. Consumerism: The End Result of Sin Marked-Capitalism
4. Globalization and the Brown Man’s Burden
5. Globalization and Moral Proximity
6. Conclusion

GLOBALIZATION AND THE BROWN MAN’S BURDEN

In the previous examples it is obvious that corporations, and even cities, have taken advantage of people groups around the world to maximize delight for the American consumer culture, and their bottom-line. Corporations that drive the American economy, and thus feed the American consumer appetite, have built themselves on the backs of the Global Brown Man, with little thought given to the consequences of their construction efforts. Unfortunately, Schneider fails to give due discourse to the responsibility of the powerful within American society to those on whom we’ve built an entire economy. If the American economy is built upon consumption–seventy percent of that economy is personal consumption–then do we not have a responsibility to those who have aided us in that building? In an age where all economies are tightly integrated, American Christians need to give greater thought to how we use the Other to fulfill our consumer predilections. While the author seems to find trouble accepting our responsibilities to other nations, we need to consider the affects of sinful forms of capitalism and discuss redemptive ways to reverse the affects of that sin.

In addressing that Christian responsibility to the global poor, Schneider exegetes Amos in relationship to “normal Western Christian” participation in the global economy. According to Schneider, Amos aimed his diatribe at the rulers of Israel and the class of ruling elites that extended the arm of the king. It was their responsibility to care for the economic conditions of the poor in society, and they failed to live out that responsibility. Even the wives of those rulers and ruling classes were condemned, because they used the profits of that misery to indulge themselves. Everyone involved, from the king down to the partners of the ruling class, were complicit in and responsible for the exploitation and oppression of the people they were suppose to have served. But in relating the sin of oppression of the rulers of Israel to Western Christians, Schneider declares, “It seems fairly obvious that what these rich people in Amos did was as deeply evil as it could be under the circumstances. But is it at all obvious that ordinary Christans are routinely committing evils comparable to theirs? Is it clear that the behavior [Ron] Sider describes [in Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger]–giving too little a percentage of their income to the global poor–is anything like what Israel’s ruling class did in spiritual and moral quality?” Unfortunately, the author does not explain why Western Christians are not somewhat guilty of the same negligence as the wives of Israel and the oppression of the ruling elites.

If we were to think redemptively about consumer capitalism, we might ask: When a Christian grandmother purchases a sweater at Gap made by an Indian 10 year old for her teenage grandson, is she not at least somewhat complicit in that Indian child’s suffering? Or when a Christian college student buys a pound of Guatemala Antigua Blend coffee from Starbucks for $12.95 for his late night study sessions, does he not in someway pronounce a blessing upon the Mighty Siren for the $.40 a pound they gave the Guatemalan farmer which perpetuates his life of poverty? What we the hyper-globally connected First World should consider is how our interactions with and use of the global poor differ in spiritual and moral quality than the exploitation and oppression Israel’s ruling class bore upon their own poor. If Western multinational corporations and national economies have built their entire businesses and economies upon the cheap labor and products of the underdeveloped world, are we not responsibile to those people?

While Schneider completely ignores issues of personal buying responsibility with seeming ease, failing to even acknowledge the connection between Western and developing economies, we can redeem the system by reconsidering how and where we shop. For instance, Grand Rapids church decided it was time to fairly compensate coffee farmers for a staple of the American culture. Instead of buying beans through corrupt coffee brokers, they are investing in a coffee growing family in Honduras, and return 100% of the profits back into that community at a value of $10 a pound. There goal is to fight corruption and greed in the coffee industry that results from American consumer capitalism, and is one way Christians can redeem the affects of the fall on capitalism. Before we can help, however, we must recognize our responsibility to our global neighbor and realize our buying patterns contribute somewhat to the injustice and oppression thousands of people face beneath the weight of a broken economic system.

Popularity: 10% [?]

This Friday series is based on a paper I wrote for my Systematic Theology 2 class. It was a reaction piece to the book The Good of Affluence , by John R. Schneider and represents my own personal wrestling with the contemporary expression of capitalism: consumer capitalism.

The Series
1. Introduction
2. Is Affluence The Point
3. Consumerism: The End Result of Sin Marked-Capitalism
4. Globalization and the Brown Man’s Burden
5. Globalization and Moral Proximity
6. Conclusion

CONSUMERISM: THE END RESULT OF SIN-MARKED CAPITALISM

In a letter to the United Nations dated September 20, 2007, Evo Morales, the President of Bolivia, outlined his frustrations with the First World and their reckless consumption. “The United States and Europe consume, on average, 8.4 times more than the world average,” he wrote. “It is necessary for them to reduce their level of consumption and recognize that all of us are guests on this same land.”
Regardless of the abundance capitalism brings to developing societies, one thing seems clear: even capitalism is marked by sin and creates a climate of consumption that God never intended. Capitalism in all of its benefits and abilities to provide an abundant life for societies eventually morphs into a fallen form that enslaves humans to desire and consumption.

And why should we expect anything different? Capitalism was envisioned during the Enlightenment and thoroughly rooted in classic liberal and modern ideologies, the principles of which exalt the autonomous rational individual to the status of god and empower him or her with the authority to create, and consume, a taylor-made destiny. As a result, the heart of capitalism is the principle of homo economicus, or Economic Man. In short, it insists that Man is an independent rational and self-interested actor who desires the greatest amount of wealth (affluence) and luxuries, avoids unnecessary labor, and possesses the ability to make judgements toward those ends. As John Stuart Mills suggests in the previous definition, the modern economic system of capitalism is rooted in self-interest and intended for individuals to create their own existence through wealth creation. Now to be sure, self-interest is not entirely bad. We do, after all, need to provide for ourselves and families and should be empowered to pursue a good life here on earth. But if capitalism ultimately gestates into consumer capitalism, should we fully advocate an economic model that actively promotes extreme indulgence?

One of the problems the author faces in his defense of capitalism is his failure to honestly address more problematic forms of this legitimate economic system, mainly consumerism. In his book, Schneider claims that Jesus does not call people away from the cosmic good of affluence, which is delight, but rather “directs them not to be rich in a manner the affirms the corrupt and corrupting system and the ways of the people who rule and profit most from it.” The problem, however, resides in his definition, for capitalism is more about self-interest than simply delight. While I affirm the belief that God’s original intent for Creation was abundance, and He is restoring the world to an abundant land “flowing with milk and honey,” it is a far stretch to suggest capitalism is the system God is using to bring about that change. This system is rooted in autonomy, rather than theistic dependence, and self-interest, which conflicts with Jesus vision of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said His system for restoration is not of this world, and the brokenness of America’s consumer capitalistic culture confirms this.

If a society is built upon consumption, it will ultimately seek to maximize that consumption with the least amount of cost. Recent headlines confirm this and have reported on the consequences of the sin-marked status of contemporary capitalism. One of the major results of consumeristic capitalism is the use of slave labor by various corporations, and even state municipalities, to ensure maximum delight with minimum costs. On November 26, 2007, The New York Times reported on the deplorable working conditions of men in India who make manhole covers for the New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection. As the article explained, the men were shirtless, barefoot, sweaty, and whip-thin, working without even basic humane safety standards. The week before, fresh revelations surfaced in the same country that Gap Inc. continues to use contractors that employ child labor, with kids as young as ten years old stitching together cute little polos for suburban ten year olds in America. Finally, contractors for yet another corporation, Victoria’s Secret, force their Jordanian workers to work up to 105 hours a week, while receiving just $.04 compensation per knitted $14 bikini. Needless to say, several multinational corporations go to great lenghts to exploit the principles of capitalism for maximum gain, usually at the expense of others downriver of the American economy.

All of this makes perfect sense, though, in light of homo economicus: capitalism encourages accumulating the most affluence with the least expense, even if it’s at the expense of the suffering of others. While capitalism in its basic form encourages private property, the rule of law, and individual human rights, consumer capitalism warps those goods by maximizing affluence (profuse abundance) for the consumer with the minimum amount of expense, a fact Schneider fails to address. So while capitalism can help create the abundance God intended at Creation, Sin and rebellious human nature exploit its principles in ghastly ways, usually resulting in the oppression and burdening of those unfortunate enough to live in the developing world.

Popularity: 13% [?]

This Friday series is based on a paper I wrote for my Systematic Theology 2 class. It was a reaction piece to the book The Good of Affluence , by John R. Schneider and represents my own personal wrestling with the contemporary expression of capitalism: consumer capitalism.

The Series
1. Introduction
2. Is Affluence The Point
3. Consumerism: The End Result of Sin Marked-Capitalism
4. Globalization and the Brown Man’s Burden
5. Globalization and Moral Proximity
6. Conclusion

IS AFFLUENCE THE POINT?

“In the past two hundred years the greatest achievement of the modern West was to create a middle class, allowing the common man to escape from poverty and live in relative comfort. Now the United States is ready to perform an even greater feat: it is well on its way to creating the first mass affluent class in world history.” Capitalism, no doubt, has contributed to great advances in modern societies. Even in emerging markets like India, Romania, and Mexico, capitalism is providing the soil to cultivate great economic and social advances that promote God’s original intentions of abundance for those societies. And according to John A. Schneider, those affluence-creating advances coincide with God’s “cosmic good” for original Creation. Throughout his book, the the author claims the condition of affluence is a cosmic good and core to God’s eternal vision for Humans. He insists that God originally desired Humans to acquire and enjoy a good, affluent existence brimming with the good stuff of life, and for good reason. Genesis does paint a beautiful picture of a Garden overflowing with every kind of good fruit and vegetable, a safe environment to raise a family, and undefiled relationships with which to grow old. God created a good Earth and placed Humans in a good Garden to enjoy and provide care.

But does God want us to be affluent, to be wealthy? Or rather, does He desire to give us an abundant life? You may think I am quibbling over words, here, but I think the author missteps by claiming that affluence is the point. Instead, both the early Genesis narrative and Promise Land Exodus motifs give us a picture of abundance, not affluence. Abundance is having a more than adequate supply of something. In our case, God desired that we Humans have a more than adequate supply of food, water, security, shelter, and relationships. The same was true for His chosen people: through the Abrahamic Covenant God wanted to bless them with abundance and give them a land with more than an adequate supply of everything they would ever need. Affluence and wealth on the other hand is having a quality of profuse abundance, of wealth beyond use. It seems that the kind of economic advantage Schneider advocates is beyond what God had in mind when he created Humans, and an example from his book illustrates the point.

In advocating affluence as an original design and intent of God’s good creation, Schneider insists Mercedes-Benz is an object in which people have the right to take pleasure. Of this right he says: “I also know how much pleasure they get from the nearly perfect performance of those vehicle. I think it is very like what other friends of mine get from the pieces of fine art that they own, or from the great books that they read. Outside of base resentment, I see no reason at all to think that either form of affection is unhealthy materialism. Why not instead wish that everyone could enjoy life at those levels?” In other words, Schneider believes taking delight in a $140,000 car is a right and cosmic good. And if a person has the means by which to enjoy the tight-handling of a Mercedes through the curvy Autobahn, then should he not feel spiritually free to exercise that right?

My question is this: why do we define the enjoyment of life by a $140,000 machine? Does God really want us to take pleasure in how a car performs? Is this how Jesus defines the life of His Kingdom? This argument sounds more like a defense of the American Dream than an explanation of the life God has for Humans. Schneider begins to fail in his defense of capitalism by getting the beginning of the Story wrong: God originally created a world of abundance for Humans to enjoy and continues to define that abundance not by the affluence of sin-marked American-Dream consumerism, but by the Kingdom of Heaven. While I believe capitalism in its basic form is good and provides a framework for private property, encourages rule of law, and insists on basic human rights, we give capitalism too much credit, especially considering it is a human construct marked by sin.

Popularity: 15% [?]

UPDATE: Somehow a few people discovered this six-month old post and made a few comments. I was going to just respond in the comment section, but I thought I would respond in the post, because this comes at a time when I’m re-thinking the whole relevance idea.

It’s interesting they’ve made these comments because I just came out of a church planting class where the consultant (Jim Griffith) made the comment that churches are EITHER relevant or irrelevant. Especially in a musical worship context, genuine missionaries want relevance, they indigenously come to their people where they are at in their language. And what’s more: excellence is no substitute for relevance. A church can have a Julliard trained organist and pianist and be wholly unrelevant for a particular people group.

So six months later I think I now see how it is a both/and situation: in order to be missional you must be relevant. Period. I guess my original angst over this word was in response to something I read consistently by anti-emergent authors/talking heads. My ears start burning when I hear fundie detractors claim the gospel is some how compromised by being…”relevant.” As if any of us can remove ourselves from our culture anyway… And here’s the thing: those detractors think that their way of doing church from the 1950’s is everything that is holy and pure about the Bride of Christ! As if an organ and piano wasn’t relevant back in the day…geesh!

I guess we do need missional, relevant churches that are reaching TODAYS culture with the good news of wholeness and shalom through Jesus. But I guess where I begin to break out in hives is when we think we need to dress up the Bride in fancy doodads to make her ATTRACTIVE. But where is the balance, then, between being relevant/missional and inauthentically attractive?

Any ideas? Because I’m sorta wondering myself as I’m shifting in my understanding of this whole idea of the church being relevant…

-jeremy

In light of my post a few days ago on being missional by doing life with your iPod, I thought I would re-post some thoughts on the difference between relevant and missional. Relevance is not the point or mission of the church, missionality is. Do you understand the distinction? Do you think there is one? To which does the church usually default?

I see this mistake made often by traditional church folk who are critical of us younger evangelicals, and I want to briefly address this very significant distinction. D. A. Carson in his book “Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church” makes the same critical error, so I’ll try and hold myself back! Look at some of these quotes from his book:

By contrast, although the emerging church movement challenges, on biblical grounds, some of the beliefs and practices of evangelicalism, by and large it insists it is preserving traditional confessionalism but changing emphases because the culture has changed, and so inevitably those who are culturally sensitive see things in a fresh perspective.

Is there at least some danger that what is being advocated is not so much a new kind of Christian in a new emerging church, but a church that is so submerging itself in the culture that is risks hopless compromise? (emphasis added)

Relevant is Michael Jackson changing his look each new album. Relevant is the modern, seeker-church who changes it’s name, decor, music style, and dresscode to show former church-goers that it isn’t as stoogy as it was back in the day. Relevant is the DC-metro mega-church who thinks it needs Starbucks to make it approachable.

Relevance is not what the postmodern emerging church is about.

Technorati Tags: christianity, da carson, emerging church, missional

Keep reading →

Popularity: 19% [?]