This ministry needs your financial support! Donate now!
Posted by Anthony on July 6, 2010
I posted a column this morning at the Cypress Times explaining why I so often come down on the side of ‘capitalism.’
In this essay, I’d like discuss what I really believe the relationship between capitalism and Christianity is, and if anyone likes what I have to say, you can make up for my loss of friends on Facebook by becoming my new friends. 
In truth, I am not interested at all in ‘capitalism.’ I am interested in freedom. I know that economists and dictionaries describe capitalism as an ‘economic system’ that can be set against socialism, communism, fascism, etc, but I don’t think of it in that way at all. In these latter examples, the common thread of the ‘isms’ is that the government itself is DOING something whereas in capitalism the basic notion is that the government is NOT DOING anything. In its purest, laissez-faire form, capitalism is just business without restrictions or interference of any kind from the government. (I doubt we’ve ever seen anything of the sort ever actually implemented, by the way).
To me, as a Christian, my first thought is simply this: on what basis do I have to restrict my fellow man in any way?
Now, I am quite certain that the Christian Scriptures do not hold up any economic or political ‘system’ as ideal. I’m equally certain that Christians are given no expectation that we could ever reach that ideal- or even that it is worth our time and effort to even try. Christians are called to serve each other and do good as they have opportunity no matter what situation that they find themselves in. There is no warrant in the Scriptures for Christians to try to erect or tinker with ‘systems.’ We are not on a quest for Utopia.
Read the rest of the column.
Posted by Anthony on March 31, 2010
My friend, Don Hank, had a column published by Worldnetdaily today entitled “Is social justice a Christian doctrine?”
Recently, Christian Left leader Jim Wallis recently said:
Christians across the theological and political spectrum believe that social justice is central to the teachings of Jesus and at the heart of biblical faith.
Actually, not only is there no consensus on this issue, but in fact, Jesus did not speak of such a concept as it is understood today.
Further, Jesus said that there would be false teachers coming in his name. Paul, arguing for strict traditionalism, steeled future Christians against heresy by writing:
Therefore, Brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught. …” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
While any Christian can agree that the first Christians held all things in common and virtually forbade owning any personal property, we find no mention that a theocracy should be established by Christians to enforce this socialism on others. And those who insist that Christian socialism must be enforced by political means are in fact endorsing a form of theocracy not less rigid than that of Muslim countries.
Read the rest of the column.
Posted by Anthony on March 17, 2010
My ministry will be hosting an online apologetics conference this May with the theme of ‘literary apologetics.’ The general idea is to impact the culture in intentional ways to pave the way for better reception of the Gospel of Christ. So culture is on my mind.
Something I’ve been pondering for awhile is this: Is the culture war over? And did we lose it?
I part company with those who seek to Christianize the culture as though this in itself is a noble goal. It seems to me that this would in effect merely make our culture a ‘white washed tomb.’ More important than the culture are the people within it and their state of mind and eternal fates. Nonetheless, people are strongly influenced by the culture at large whether they know it or not or admit it or not. An unfriendly culture will make it harder for people to receive the Gospel.
I believe that. To an extent. I note, however, that the Christian Church itself exploded into existence within a culture that was not yet, by virtue of the fact that there wasn’t a pervasive Christianity to Christianize, Christian. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on September 5, 2009
This essay is long- some 2,000 words. But I think it is worth reading. Print it out if you like if that makes it easier.
————————
‘Individualism’ has a bad rap, even among Christians. To be fair, there are things in ‘individualism’ that I think are unhealthy or even immoral, too, but the key thing to remember is that any opposite of ‘individualism’ is not necessarily preferable. If we’re going to raise up ‘inter-connectedness’ (a neutral term, I hope) it must be done thoughtfully, and it cannot obliterate that which is moral or good in ‘individualism.’
The only folks that I’ve ever heard defend ‘individualism’ are the Objectivists- the offspring of Ayn Rand, that spunky atheist who escaped the clutches of communism. Rand’s views on the individual seem to be expressed most succinctly, and passionately, in her little book Anthem
, which is a favorite of mine. There is a flaw in her book however: the intrinsic value of the individual is assumed; no basis for it is provided.
And no wonder. In atheism, no basis for the value of the individual human can be provided. At best, the individual human values himself, and then out of concern for his own interests forges a social compact with other individual humans not hurt him. That is secular humanism at its core. But this can only go so far. Once ‘social compacts’ are on the table, the ‘good of society’ becomes an obvious next step. “The most good for the most people.”
I won’t explore the inevitable progression from there (“Someone must decide what that good is”) and discuss the history of abuse that consistently emerged within these systems. These are not the point of this post, but you can find comments on it on this blog and the issue is discussed in my fictional book series, Birth Pangs.
The point, here, is that within secular humanism and atheistic systems, the only thing that lasts from one generation to the next is the State. Society and the State become the ‘highest’ level organism, and the individual a mere cell within it. From the point of view of the State, the individual has as much value as a skin cell which can be scraped off and safely discarded. Naturally, more valuable cells you want to keep around- while they have utility- but the ‘brain cells’ never lose sight of the fact that the cell’s value is strictly in what it can contribute to the ‘body.’ Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on September 2, 2009
This post should be understood as speaking specifically to Christians. I don’t deny that nonChristians might find it applicable but I am speaking to people, broadly speaking, that I expect to have a similar world view as I do. Most importantly, I expect that they accept the Scriptures as authoritative.
———-
“Thou shalt not steal.” Exodus 20:15
———-
There is a large divide between conservative and liberal principles and in many cases it is evident that there can be no compromise. However, many sincere, conservative Christians find at least some of the proposals often put forward by liberals as admirable, at least in principle. Environmental issues are one example. The most current one is health care.
There is a sincere desire of many conservative-minded Christians to find ways to help the poor and downtrodden in our society. The ‘best’ of the Democrat platform includes concern for these same folks and hence solutions that utilize the government to achieve that end often get support (at least in principle) even from conservatives.
I know of no Christian conservative that is happy that there are people in this society that cannot afford to eat, have shelter, or get health care. There is a certain allure of using the Government to provide for these needs. This tends to happen in particular when the problems seem to be too big for individuals or localities to deal with on their own or because of the high costs involved.
I mention health care because it is the topic of the moment but my challenge applies to many of proposed Government solutions.
My challenge is this: on what basis can we possibly justify taking money from other people by taxation (ie, through coercion, threat of punishment, etc), to achieve that which we think is a worthy charitable end? Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on August 31, 2009
It may seem that something like health care is well out of bounds of a Christian apologetics ministry but it is not true. The divorce made between faith and politics, often made by Christians themselves, is usually wrong headed. That is not to say that I advocate a ‘theocracy.’ It is to say that there is a clear connection between beliefs and actions, and ideologies and consequences. The current health care debate illustrates this very well in that a person’s preferred solution often depends on one’s overall ideology.
Not all ideologies are created equal. Some result in increased freedom for all. Others result in slavery. Sometimes the ideology leads people to embrace slavery as being less harmful than the cost of freedom. Sometimes, people get hurt. And that’s generally bad, and something that I as a Christian apologist should like to try to prevent if I can.
Many folks seem to concede that turning over the management of our health to the Government is giving up some of our personal freedoms, ie, a form of slavery… but the need is great and so the ‘solution’ justifiable. When you object to this ‘soft tyranny‘ the retort is: “Oh yea? What is your solution?”
This always strikes me as in the “When did you stop beating your wife” category. I can almost see the Nazis standing over the trenches, ready to slaughter another hundred Jews; one bystander protests and the Nazis retort, “Oh yea? What is your solution?” Uh, well… This is not to say that all those pushing for American Socialism have in mind National Socialism. I’m just trying to illustrate the principle.
So what follows are my ideas for a ‘solution.’ Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on May 29, 2009
I saw this article from Pravda posted on the Drudge Report.
I am linking to it because I think there is a fair bit of truth in it, actually. I doubt it will wake anyone up. While I know a great deal of people who are not happy with the current trends and are not the ‘sheeple’ referenced by the editorialist, I can think of a fair number who scoff at the notion that fascism or socialism could happen here… when in fact it isn’t a question of whether or not it could happen, it is happening.
By the time these scoffers wake up it will be too late. And then there are of course the scoffers who actually desire a Marxist state but prudence requires that they deny that they desire it every step of the way even as they work to make each of those steps a reality.
One of those persons is the man a majority of Americans voted for president in the last election.
Here is the article. Enjoy.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/
(Note that there are two pages to the article)
