 |
|  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 8/12/2003 1:38 PM (GMT -6) |   | This paragraph is taken from "Further Limits to Chicago School Doctrine" by Warren Samuels as found in "The Chicago School of Political Economy" edited by Warren Samuels. A very interesting book.
The problem of order in any society, following Joseph Spengler [1948]"The Problem of Order in Economic Affairs," Southern Economic Journal 15 (July):1-29., is that of the continuing conflict of autonomy, coordination, continuity, and change. Stated somewhat differently, it is the problem of freedom versus control, including hierarchy vs. equality, and continuity vs change. In one respect it is the problem of the organization and control of the economic system, including the distribution of power; in another, it is the creation, revision, and balancing of values to guide organization and conduct. Order is a process, not a condition; it is something which is continually worked out, not acheived once and for all time. Most if not all social and moral philosophy, including speculation and theory with regard to the economic role of government, tends to presume a specific resolution or concept of the "problem" of order. To be ideological in this context is to take a position on the elements of the problem of order.
cheers, dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
   |  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 8/13/2003 5:05 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Originally posted by Tigress
In one of the versions I have of the Bible, the footnotes stated that if the Israelites had followed God's civil laws regarding the economy there would have been no poverty in their nation. There was the 7-year thing (I can't remember what it was called) where all debts would be forgiven and slaves could go free. There was the Jubilee which I think was every 50 years where something like that happened on an even larger scale. Usury or charging interest was against the law, too. And of course there was the law of allowing foreigners and the less well-off to glean spare crops.
I'm sorry this isn't very complete in its description. I'm only going from memory but I was fascinated by the concept because the only thing that threw a wrench in the works was human greed. If everyone had adhered to these laws, Israel would have essentially been an economic utopia - and a great example for the rest of the world.
Yeah there is no evidence that the return of all the properties under the year of jubilee ever happened, but the fact that they had that ideal served to inset an ethic of the importance of equality.
The israelites, being a collection of tribes between two larger countries were only able to maintain their sovereignty on the basis of their religious solidarity so as soon as people got more preoccupied with making money, they usually fell to foreign invaders as is recorded in Judges.
Land was viewed as the source of Value and ultimately a gift from God, hence the reason why their laws were meant to guarantee that all families would have their land they were originally assigned given back to them eventually.
dlw Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
 |  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 8/13/2003 7:25 AM (GMT -6) |   | This is an article on different views of Church and State that are developing...
Are Christians Supposed to Take Dominion? by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
from the Christian Research Journal, Fall, 1988, page 31. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.
Are Christians supposed to "take dominion" in the world before Christ returns? Two growing movements within American Christianity are saying Yes. The first is the Christian Reconstruction movement, led by such men as Gary North and R.J. Rushdoony. Based on the postmillennial view of prophecy (according to which the church Christianizes the world as a whole before Christ's return), Reconstructionists call upon Christians to prepare themselves to take over the world's institutions, including its governments, following the conversion of the world's people to Christ.
The second group is popularly known as Kingdom Now, led by such men as Earl Paulk and Thomas Reid. "Kingdom theology" urges the church to become unified and mature under the rule of charismatic apostles and prophets (such as Paulk), and penetrate worldly institutions enough to "serve notice" that the church represents the authority of Christ the King.
The emphasis on the church's taking "dominion" in both of these movements has led to their being associated together under the label "dominion theology." And there are significant points of contact and common notions held by the two groups. But there are some even more important differences. The Reconstructionists are orthodox Calvinists and are thus solidly evangelical, even if many evangelicals will strongly disagree with postmillennialism and other distinctive Reconstructionist doctrines. Kingdom Now, on the other hand, brings together in one package most of the unbiblical elements of the earlier heretical perversions of Pentecostalism issuing from the "Latter Rain" movement of the late 1940s.
Thus, these two movements understand "taking dominion" rather differently. The Reconstructionists envision a gradual, pervasive transformation of human institutions in the wake of worldwide conversion to orthodox Christianity. The Kingdom Now prophets look for a brief display of the church's power as the basis for Christ condemning the unbelieving world for not listening to the church's gospel.
One practical implication of these differences is that those Reconstructionists and Kingdom Now followers who are seeking to band together in a common effort to "take dominion" are misled. The two movements are working for different goals.
Nevertheless, convinced that "taking dominion" means wresting control of our government away from the godless, and that this is in fact Christ's mandate to the church, both groups are pursuing political power. They hope that Christians can take sufficient control of things to set the agenda and course for America into the next century.
But are Christians supposed to be taking dominion at all? Granted that there is some confusion among American Christians as to what taking dominion would mean, is there a sense in which this really is the mission of the church? A careful reading of the Bible indicates otherwise. Simply put, the Bible never commands Christians to take dominion. A search for such a mandate proves fruitless. The Bible never even hints that this is to be a responsibility of the church between Christ's first and second comings.
It is often claimed that the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 is a directive to fulfill the "Dominion Mandate" of Genesis 1:28, in which God commanded man to subdue the earth and have dominion. This claim does not bear close scrutiny of the texts. In Genesis 1:28 God gives dominion over the animal kingdom to man. In Matthew 28:18-20 Christ, after stating that He (not the church) has all authority in heaven and on earth (v. 18), commands the church to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them (vv. 19-20). There is certainly no explicit connection made in Matthew 28 between the Great Commission and the Dominion Mandate of Genesis 1:28. Nor are the commands to disciple, baptize, and teach somehow equivalent to "take dominion."
Through the fulfillment of the Great Commission by the church, Christ is exercising His dominion over the earth in calling men and women into the kingdom. And Christ is working through the church to defeat sin and death through the preaching of the gospel. In this sense the church plays a role in Christ's rule between His first and second comings (1 Cor. 15:24-28), but it is indirect. It is Christ who rules, Christ who takes dominion -- not the church.
The promise of an earthly dominion in which the redeemed rule is biblical (Rev. 5:10; 20:6; 22:5). However, whether one interprets the earthly reign of the redeemed in a premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial fashion, this reign is not the result of Christians struggling to take dominion over political and economic institutions. Even in classic postmillennial thought the Christianization of worldly institutions during the Millennium will be a by-product of the success of the church's mission to make disciples of all peoples, not a result of a direct attempt by the church to take over these institutions.
I do not mean to imply that Christians should be politically inactive, or that they should not seek political office. It is certainly better for the righteous to rule than the wicked (Prov. 29:2). Thus, while I disagree with the claim that the church's mandate is to take dominion, I also disagree with those who criticize any attempt to establish "the rule of the righteous" (as television commentator Bill Moyers has put it). My point is that the church's main responsibility is evangelism and discipleship, not political activism. Christians should exercise righteous "dominion" when the opportunity presents itself, and doing so does not require compromise with Christian principles. But the church has no general mandate from Christ to seek or achieve worldwide or even nationwide political dominion before His return.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
 |  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 8/18/2003 11:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | Frank Knight, an economist who came from a midwestern, fundamentalist, baptist background, believed that there was an antithetical character to the relation between religion and liberalism.
In Ross Emmett's article on Knight in the book, "Economics and Religion: Are they Distinct?", it is written that, "In a world where the assurance of divine providential care cannot be assumed, the consequences of human choice matter much more than the intentions behind them, and the choice of institutional mechanisms for facilitating discussion and coordinating choices becomes a matter of great significance.
Thus, the importance of the problem of order is associated with the kenotic transfer of decision-making from God to us humans. How we live as a church or a country is not teleologically driven along the right path by God. It is a function of our own decisions, which is a function of the institutions we set up for such decision-making.
I would further maintain that there is no blue-print handed down as to how such power/decision-making/governance is distributed and coordinated in the Bible or through not-written-down traditions. It is a fallible process, as illustrated by the controversy over whether the RCChurch demanded cover-up of cases where priests were involved in sex-abuse. dlw Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
 |  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 8/20/2003 4:42 AM (GMT -6) |   | When loyalty to the Catholic church is placed above the quest for truth ... Further comment from the Guardian spurred by the discovery of Catholic Church wrong-doing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/...1021916,00.html
quote: When loyalty to the Catholic church is placed above the quest for truth it debases religion
Karen Armstrong Wednesday August 20, 2003 The Guardian
In 1962 the saintly Pope John XXIII signed a confidential document that outlined a policy of "strictest" secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse by priests and threatened those who spoke out with excommunication. It was dispatched to bishops all over the world. This document has recently come to light and has been hailed by lawyers acting for the victims of abuse as a blueprint for an official Vatican policy of deception and concealment. A spokesman for the Catholic church has denied this, claiming that the lawyers have distorted the document, which deals only with the church's internal disciplinary procedures, by quoting it out of context. This misses the point. One of the most chilling aspects of this latest revelation is that it has caused barely a ripple of surprise, even among Catholics. Sadly, this is what we have come to expect from an institution which has consistently involved bishops, priests and laity alike in a network of denial and deceit ever since 1870, when by dint of coercion and political chicanery, Pius IX got the first Vatican council to promulgate the highly controversial doctrine of papal infallibility.
Once the authority of the pope was exalted above the priesthood of all believers, it became impossible to admit that the church had ever been wrong. The sex abuse scandal is only one instance of this determined flight from truth, justice and compassion. We have also seen it in the church's relations with the Jewish people. Pius X encouraged the Catholic press to denounce Jews as the eternal enemies of the Church. When Pius XI tried to back away from this anti-Semitic policy towards the end of his life, Vatican officials who expected his imminent death blocked his encyclical. The cardinals subsequently elected Pius XII, whose apparent failure to condemn the Nazis has become a notorious scandal.
To this day, Catholic officials find it well nigh impossible to admit that Pius XII was in any way at fault. When the second Vatican council tried to address the Jewish question in the 1960s, the more conservative bishops refused to pass a document that referred explicitly to any Catholic persecution of Jews in the past. The present pope, John Paul II, has issued an apology to the Jewish people that has widely been dismissed as anodyne, and he still supports the proposed canonisation of Pius XII. Once an institution declares that it enjoys unique divine guidance, it becomes constitutionally unable to admit culpability. Cover-up has become automatic.
The same process of cumulative denial is also evident in sexual matters. In the past, the church had no fixed teaching on contraception, and until the 13th century it was possible for priests to marry. But Paul VI's views were so inflexible that he could not accept the findings of his own commission on birth control, and flew in the face of science, biblical scholarship, and the poignant experience of married people. His encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968) split the church, with the hierarchy upholding the ban and the laity virtually ignoring it. Many Catholics have felt spiritually impaired by the struggle to be loyal to Rome while disregarding its solemn dictates in the most intimate part of their lives.
Still more disturbing has been the present Pope's refusal to change the laws on clerical celibacy, even though it appears that some 40% of the clergy simply do not keep their vows. The greatest casualties of this disastrous policy have been the victims of those priests who have been unable to remain celibate and have resorted to compulsive pederasty and abuse. The suffering of thousands of children and women, who have also been abused and abandoned by priests, goes unacknowledged by a church that seems more concerned with its own image than with the demands of truth and charity.
Idolatry is not simply the worship of a false god; it occurs whenever a purely human value becomes the chief focus of religious aspiration. In its concern to shore up their authority, Catholic officials are often guilty of institutional idolatry. But they are not alone. It is becoming increasingly unusual to hear any religious leaders frankly admit the failings of their own co-religionists and institutions.
The hierarchy of the Church of England, which has recently withdrawn from the election of a homosexual bishop, seem currently in denial of the fact that, whether they like it or not, many of their priests are gay. Too many Muslim clerics are wary of issuing an outright condemnation of suicide bombing, even though it violates cardinal principles of Islam. Again, it is rare to hear a prominent rabbi condemning Israeli policies that clearly flout the golden rule propounded by the great Rabbi Hillel: "Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you."
Religious leaders are basically politicians, and secular politicians also seem to find it impossible to apologise or admit error. The Hutton inquiry is revealing yet another web of half-truth and evasion of responsibility. Some relatives of the Lockerbie victims have refused the compensation offered by Libya, because they do not believe that the whole story has yet come to light. Cover-up seems to be a prevailing sin in the political arena at present, and it is perhaps unreasonable to expect rabbis, imams or bishops to be any different.
But religious politicians are committed to ideals that fly in the face of this idolatry. Many of the founders of the great world faiths were iconoclasts, who vehemently denounced the establishment of their day. The prophets subjected the kings of Israel to ruthless criticism and forced their people to face up to their own shortcomings. The same is true of the Buddha or the Prophet Mohammed. Jesus is depicted in the gospels as a rebel, who refused to submit to laws and institutions that got in the way of charity, truth and the alleviation of suffering. It is not difficult to imagine what he would say about the abuse of children by his priests and the Vatican's persistent avoidance of responsibility for their pain.
The religions are all committed to the quest for truth, however uncomfortable. In very different ways, they also insist upon repentance, atonement and the conversion of life. They speak above all of the practice of compassion, which in every single one of the major world faiths is the litmus test of any true spirituality or ideology. It is only when a religion has become debased that it speaks of loyalty to the institution as a supreme value.
Jung, I believe, once said that a great deal of religious practice seemed designed precisely to prevent people from having a truly religious experience. All idolatry is a retreat from God. There is unanimous agreement that the religious quest cannot begin until we see things as they really are. We cannot function effectively while trapped in enervating structures of denial, and a church that ignores the suffering of those it has injured in order to shore up its own authority has lost its way. There can be no healing for either the church or its victims unless the hierarchy learns once again to speak the truth that sets us free.
· comment@guardian.co.uk
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:49 PM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|