Reaction to the Death of Bin Laden

So I have recently just heard the news that Osama Bin Laden is dead and I am kind of confused as to how I feel. Part of me is happy that he personally can not harm those who are innocent any longer. Part of me is worried that he will become a martyr and many troops and civilians alike will be at risk, as his followers may retaliate. And a third part of me mourns for the death of a man, a man who was someone's child, a man who was not just someone's child, but was a creation of God. The fact that unless there was some miraculous conversion before his death means there is a good chance that he will unlikely spend eternity in Heaven with God.

Despite all of this confusion as to how I should feel, what I do know is that more than likely God was out looking for a sheep, one sheep out of a hundred, and that sheep has died. God more than likely was unable to save this sheep in this instance, because this sheep kept wandering and did not head the voice of its shepherd. I feel that God desired to have a relationship with Bin Laden, but it seems more than likely that Bin Laden rejected that relationship. For this I feel God mourns.

One other thing I know is this, a life is gone, no matter how evil that life may have been, dancing and celebrating in the streets is the wrong response. After all, the Arab world, who views the United States as the personification of evil, did the same after the attacks of 9/11. And if you were like me, it only angered me even more. But the only outcome of a similar reaction will only bring us down to the level of those who hate America, a level where I would rather not go.

So we can be happy that justice has been served, but please, don't be happy that a person had to lose their life, very likely their eternal life. I know that God mourns for the lost soul, and because He mourns, I mourn too.

Money, Greed, and God Review: Part 2

Chapter 1: Can We Build a Just Society.

Summary 

            Richards begins this chapter with a journey into his past. He traces his early flirtation with communism/socialism back to his time in a youth group with a youth pastor who was more concerned with social issues of the day more so that with the death of Christ. This is followed by an account of how we was taught communistic/socialistic principles at a college that was once Christian, but by his time had turned into a school that was more Liberal Protestant. His brief biography ends with the admission that while he loved communism/socialism as an ideology, reality soon got in the way of the intellectual ideology.

            Richards follows his history with communism/socialism with a history of communism beginning with Marx and ending with the fall of the U.S.S.R., with Richards mainly focusing on the deaths that leaders like Mao and Lenin caused. Richards then moves on combat the belief that the early church and the early pilgrims were in fact communist, by stating that the early church voluntarily gave away their possessions and that even Paul instructs that people are to work for their own food. Finally he states that communism in the early Pilgrim colony was a failure, and even they had to turn to private ownership.

            In the end Richards says that the reason communism/socialism fails is because it tries to bring Heaven to earth with God. Richards states that only God can bring about his Kingdom, and that any human attempts to bring about total equality will result in the suffering of people. But this does not mean we are to sit idly by and wait for God to bring the Kingdom, but that we have a part in it as his church. Then Richards says to compare capitalism with Heaven would be wrong, rather we must compare it to the extreme of communism and by doing so we will see that capitalism is the best answer.

Concerns/Questions

            My first concern is that Richards essentially tossed himself a slow mush ball to hit out of the park rather easily, rather than attempting to hit a fastball by taking on the much tougher criticisms of capitalism, or even less extreme versions of socialism in this chapter. The position that Richards combats is such an extreme position of communism that less than one percent of Americans agree with. A statistic given by Richards himself! I mean come on, anyone who wants U.S.S.R. or Chinese style communism/socialism is either a fool or has their head in the sand! Or maybe there are other options, but the point is that anyone can see that Lenin and Mao’s version of communism was extremely deadly; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. What Richards is doing is attempting to make it look like anyone who supports anything but capitalism is supporting death and suffering. But the truth is that this is unfair, because not all people who criticize capitalism support Maoism or Lenin style communism, heck they won’t even support Marxism. Instead they realize that while capitalism is better than communism that capitalism has its own issues, issues that they desire to be fixed. Now Richards’ tactic is widely used by people from many different backgrounds, so let’s not act like Richards is the only person ever to do this. I am however more disappointed that a person with the credentials that Richards has would resort to such a tactic.

            That being said, I love that Richards brought in the “Not Yet but Already Kingdom.” For a second I was beginning to get scared that Richards was going to pull out the, “this is how it is and it can’t be changed until the Lord comes card.” However, in this section he only declares that this type of thinking is wrong, he fails to go into how we ought to live in the “Not Yet but Already Kingdom.” However, I am guessing that he will do that in other parts of the book. So I am not giving up on the hope that Richards will show how capitalism ought to work in the “Not Yet/Already” time period.

I do have one question though. I wonder what Richard’s view of human nature is. He implies that humanity will refuse to work unless made to do so and that is why communism/socialism fails. However, that’s about all he says. I wonder if he ever takes into account the view that it is in the nature of humans to desire mammon, or stuff, and to sometimes obtain it at any cost. I mean mammon is something that is a rival to God when it comes to what we worship. Also God knew that humanity had a coveting problem when he gave us the Ten Commandments. That being said, I wonder how coming to the realization that humans by nature like things, shiny things, expensive things, fun things; and are willing to do immoral acts (not necessarily illegal) to achieve such things, would affect his views on unregulated capitalism.

Money, Greed, and God Review: Part 1

So I promised a book review on Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and not the Problem by Jay W. Richards. I thought it would be interesting to hear exactly how capitalism could be the solution, because honestly capitalism has caused some major atrocities in the world. Things like slavery, imperialism, and wars. To be fair, however, it has brought good as well. capitalism has allowed people the ability to have a say in who they become, rather than relegate them to the role they were born in. It is also only fair to say that true socialism/communism which seems to be the either/or alternatives to capitalism, have created many more atrocities than capitalism and has not achieved the success that capitalism has. I do need to clarify my statement above by saying that true socialism/communism is not what Americans like to call socialism that occurs in England or France, but is rather the Socialism that has occurred in places such as the U.S.S.R. or The People’s Republic of China that was employed on the road to becoming Communism, which then failed miserably.

Anyway, I am going to review this book one chapter at a time. This is due to the fact that it seems to have a lot to chew on. So I am not going to try and give my impressions on the whole book till the end. Rather, by reviewing each chapter, I hope to help take you through my thoughts and impressions as I journey through the book. So first, a little about the author.

Jay W. Richards comes from the Discovery Institute of Science and Culture. Probably one of the most right wing of right wing groups when it comes to religion and politics. He has co-authored at least four other books, two of which seem to deal with the issue of Intelligent Design. He has two Masters Degrees in Theology, Divinity, and a PhD. in Philosophy and Religion.

Introduction Review

Summary 

In the introduction, Richards begins by stating all the evil results that are visible due to a capitalistic society from ecological issues to exploitation issues. However, Richards believes that pastors do not have the right to speak out about economics, at least when it comes to capitalism, because they are foggy on the issue. Richards then states that he will attempt to work through the fog by debunking eight myths about capitalism: The Nirvana Myth, The Piety Myth, The Zero-Sum Game Myth, The Materialist Myth, The Greed Myth, The Usury Myth, The Artsy Myth, and The Freeze-Frame Myth. Richards states he will address each myth in its own chapter. He then finishes the introduction by asking the question, how is wealth created? He states the economists are unable to answer the question, but a Christian can. This is because material wealth is created by something immaterial, it is created through Spirituality. This is because we are created in God’s image, which includes creativity and by being free to use our creativity, we can create wealth. In the end according to Richards, a good Christian should be a good capitalist.

Questions and Concerns

I only have two concerns with this introduction, of which only one is of great concern, that being Richard’s idea that pastors are not qualified to speak on the issue of economics, at least when it comes to critiquing capitalism. Richards in fact picks up on a quote used by Rick Karlgaard, in which Karlgaard equates pastors who speak about economics to being eunuchs who speak about sex. I feel Richards is way off with his comparison. The first of which is that everyone who lives in a society is a part of the economic structure of that society. They may experience the structure from a different viewpoint than others, but they still experience the structure, and it is important to understand how an economic system affects people at all levels of a society, whether that viewpoint comes from an intellectual economist, a pragmatic economist, a pastor, a billionaire business owner, a small business owner, a high scale wage earner, or a small scale wage earner.

Another reason that I feel Richards is due to the fact that some pastors can even witness both the negatives and positives that an economic system produces on a global level, especially some of the pastors who are able to use their position to travel the world through the use of mission trips and see how economic on one side of the world can affect the economic system on the other side of the globe in areas that are often ignored.

Finally I feel he is wrong in his assumption, because economics is a huge issue in the scriptures. Almost one third of Jesus’ parables deal with economics, Jesus speaks more about mammon than he does of Heaven and Hell, and approximately 1 of 7 verses in Luke deal with money. Therefore, it is my opinion that pastors should have the right to speak on issues of money and ought to speak about money, especially when the topic is on how one ought to spend and earn money in a moral capacity.

A smaller issue that I have with Richards is that I don’t think he acts very kindly towards those he disagrees with. It only took him only two paragraphs to call a group of people that he disagrees with a condescending name. Now it was just “snooty liberals” but for someone who is writing a book as a Christian, I found it very unloving and very un-Christ like. I mean it is one thing to blurt it out, but it is another thing for someone to write it in a book, and go over it numerous times and allow it to remain in there. To me it shows bad scholarship from someone with a Ph

I do have some questions however. First, Richard’s says that capitalism does not promote greed. However, I wonder what he would have to say with the fact that during our last economic boom, the middle class did not gain any wealth. I also wonder how he would explain the fact that since the 1970’s the middle class has relatively maintained the same level of wealth while the upper classes have gained wealth exponentially. Now to be fair, that is not to say that capitalism has to be based on greed. But I would say that in our current society, capitalism does result in greediness. I hope he addresses these issues later on in the book.

            My last question is how does Richards come to the belief that Christians ought to be capitalists? I have heard some people make this claim, but I have never been convinced that they are right. To be fair, I have heard people claim that Christians ought to be socialist/communist. But then again, they have not convinced me either. I operate under the belief that a Christian does not have to be one or the other, rather the Christian must be willing to give to their neighbor, whether that is through the state or through charity. I am however sure that Richard’s will address this question in the book.