The Book Of James And Trump's Policies

 What has been contended for by this blog is that Europe and North America are facing a dangerous and growing threat to Democracy with Equality. The menace here is Authoritarianism with Hierarchy. We should note that both of the those term are redundancies. That is because just as one cannot have Democracy without equality, neither will one have hierarchy without Authoritarianism.

The Authoritarianism with Hierarchy often campaigns as an ethnocracy. And ethnocracy occurs with an ethnic group takes such control of a nation that that ethnic group not only dominates the other ethnic groups, it gains a place of privilege in society including in determining the laws of a society. Jeff Halper lists the ethnicities around which an ethnic group can be defined: race, descent, religion, language or national origin. 

In Russia, the ethnocracy is a façade meant to gain enough popular support to gain or maintain power. The real hierarchy in the Russia is a group of ruling elites including its totalitarian leader. That it is the rich who are shown a great deal of partiality by its government. Not surprisingly, Russia's present is our near future if our President has anything to say about.

What does President Trump want for America? For one thing, he wants to be America's CEO. This means that he is defining the role of President to be that of a totalitarian leader. Those who oppose or disagree him and his policies will be fired in a metaphysical but significant sense. And what his policies show is a favoritism toward the rich as seen in the cutting of their social responsibility ties to society, his economic policies, a weakened government's ability to hold the wealthy accountable, reduction in social safety nets, and in new immigration policies. And regarding immigration,  we should note that Trump opens America's arms to passionately embrace those who are wealthy which includes those who can pay $5 million to enter the nation and wealth-endowed South African landowners. On the other hand, Trump has pretty much shut the door on most immigration from South of the border many of whom emigrate to America to escape life-threatening poverty and violence. 

And so what does the New Testament book of James say about Trump's showing of partiality to the wealthy? The following gives us a hint. Here we should note that in his epistle, James is writing to Jewish Christians in the quote below which comes from chapter 2:

My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. 2 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, 3 and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil [d]motives? 5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? 7 Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?

Now we should note what James says to many who are rich because they have exploited people:

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. 2 Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. 3 Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure! 4 Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. 5 You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.

Some opportunists from the Left want to believe that James was channeling Marx when speaking about the rich. He wasn't. After all Marx was most concerned about the redistribution of power from which the redistribution of wealth would naturally occur. James says nothing about the redistribution of power. But Christians who support Trump should take note of what James says regarding showing partiality to the wealthy as well as his condemnation of many who are rich.

And so even though we must exercise great caution when applying the standards that the New Testament does to believers in Christ to laws for society, the favoritism that Trump is showing to the wealthy should be disturbing to us believers. That is especially true when we see James's description of the rich. In the earlier quote, James describes the rich using the law to persecute Christians. In the latter quote, James describes the rich as exploiting workers.

Certainly we should not use these passages from James to stereotype the wealthy for there are enough counterexamples to the kind of rich people whom James described. But we see enough rich people in society who warrant James's comments about the rich. Now as whether or not Christians should engage in what some of my fellow Leftists advcocate, which is to 'eat the rich,' that is addressed in the part of James's epistles that follows the 2nd quote above. Spoiler Alert: The answer is NO!

But there is one more passage from the Bible that we should reflect on before supportingTrump's current economic policies. That passage is from Ezekiel 16:48-50 as the prophet speaks to Israel about its sins:

48 As I live,” declares the Lord God, “Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. 50 Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it

Note the reference to Sodom in the above passage. It is the same Sodom as the Sodom of Sodom and Gomorrah fame. And so the issue here, especially for us believers in Christ, is not whom you voted for. The issue is what policies are we actively or passively supporting. What policies are we speaking about or being silent on. The issue is in what direction do we want to see our nation going? The direction in which we want our nation to go is significantly reflected by how we want the vulnerable to be treated. Do we at least want them to be treated with the same importance as the rich have? Or do we want a hierarchy where one economic class, especially the class that can buy our government, is shown partiality at the expense of the rest of us? Do we want a government and nation that regards all citizens as being equally important or do we prefer to go the way of Sodom, as just mentioned, or of the Israelites whom Ezekiel was speaking to? Are we going to promote equality between all groups of people in America or are we going to show the partiality that James warned his fellow Jewish believers in Christ against.

Because of some of the democratic tools available to us, we have the power to influence the direction in which our nation will go and the importance that each group of Americans will be recognized as having. What are we going to do?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 1, 2015

 Since access to the comments on this particular post seems not to be working, there is a possibility that the comment below was not blocked.

June 23

To Christopher Yuan and his blogpost on how to discuss gay marriage. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

If there is no room for civil disagreement on homosexuality, could part of that be because of religiously conservative Christians who have sought legislation to either prohibit same-sex marriage or allow for Jim Crow type discrimination against those in the LGBT community? Perhaps some from that community should be interviewed here to see the varying reasons for why there is less room for civil disagreement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 24

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote talking about the rights of those individuals and businesses that wish to practice business according to  their own views of marriage? This occurred in Heidelblog.

But are the people who are "standing up" for marriage infringing on the rights of others? In particular, are they infringing on the rights of those who wish to engage in same-sex marriage?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote claiming that Francis does not understand the Gospel by how he speaks about the poor. This appeared in Heidelblog.

If the love of money is sin and preaching repentance from sin is part of preaching the Gospel, then perhaps those who exclude talking about poverty are the ones who do not understand the Gospel. For what does Jesus say at the beginning of his ministry? He read from Isaiah 61.

Though Francis is not correct in everything he says, he is addressing points which Protestants who fail to preach to those with wealth and power should be addressing. So perhaps Conservative Protestants who claim that Francis does not understand the Gospel should consider whether they are playing the role of the pharisee in the parable of the two men praying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 26

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote about how our nation's founders believed in the principles of the Magna Carta. This appeared in Heidelblog.

But the liberties that the colonists lavished on themselves were shared with neither America's Indigenous people nor slaves. In fact, what liberties one enjoyed depended on economic class, race, and religion. At this point we need to realize that liberties - equality = privilege. And that is what most of our founders believed in: privilege.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Dominic Bouck and his blogpost on the end of democracy. This appeared in First Things.

Just as propaganda is defined by who is saying what, the presence of judialocracy is determined by one's disagreement with Court decisions. If we want to know what is destroying democracy, we will soon discover that it is the money spent on the executive and legislative branches that provides the biggest threat to our democracy.

Of course, another threat to our democracy is wearing rose-colored glasses to view our past. In reality, The Constitution was written in response to dissent and rebellion against the practices and policies of America's own elites--this stands in contrast to the Declaration of Independence which was written in response to the practices and policies of British elites. And the jest of The Constitution, when one reads about the historical context in which it was written and documents of that time, is easily understood as a protection of the status quo against which people were protesting. Here we should note that the Bill of Rights was not included in the original version of The Constitution. In fact, because of The Constitution, only 5% of the people were eligible to vote immediately after it became law. If we include the contents of The Constitutional debates with our understanding of The Constitution, we will discover that some key founding fathers opposed democracy and even the voting rights of all people.

When we finally add to the above the fact that The Constitution did not show kindness to people of color, we find that the founding of our nation well less based on law than we would care to admit.

It's the Supreme Court's job to analyze our legislation to determine if it violates The Constitution. That is a part of the structure of our gov't. And it poorly reflects on us when our opposition to the role played by the Supreme Court depends solely on our disagreement with its decisions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 28

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quoting Justice Thomas on religious liberty in the light of the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage. This appeared in Heidelblog.

What is it that is being protested here? The right of those who disagree with the Biblical definition of marriage so that they can engage in same-sex marriage. So when will we discuss the religious liberties of those who disagree with us on same-sex marriage? Or are we the only ones with religious freedom?

BTW, where was Justice Thomas' reference to due process and the Magna Carta when Obama signed the 2012 NDAA. In that law, American citizens can be arrested without due process at the discretion of the President. This provision of that law was written as part of the war on terror.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 30

To Bruce Edward Walker and his blogpost about Biblical principles of environmental stewardship. This appeared in the Acton blog.


There are problems here. As in many Conservative Christian approaches to subjects, we've sometimes defined reality before facing it. And thus the facts on the ground challenge our definitions. As a result, sometimes the unbeliever is quicker at recognizing the discrepancies between what exists and our definitions.

For example, has, in Acton's Environmental Stewardship study explicitly stated specific problems that human activities have had on the environment. Has this study talked about the increasing number of dead zones in the ocean due to the ocean's absorption of CO and chemical runoffs from the fertilization and other treatment of farmlands? Has Acton's study included the environmental destruction and increased health risks seen in the Appalachians from the Mountaintop removal of coal? Has Acton's study  included the environmental hazards faced by local residents from the extraction of fossil fuels in Nigeria or the environmental problems that have come with fracking in the U.S.?

What have Acton's studies say about the consumption of fossil fuels and the growing environmental problems caused by such for both the present and the future?

By accusing the Constitution of vying for limited government power, is Acton aware of the context and purpose of The Constitution in that it was written to strengthen the federal government so that it could better respond to dissent and rebellions such what took place in Shays Rebellion? Is the Acton Institute aware of the following statement by Madison about the purpose of government?

They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

We should note that part of what preceded this statement was an expressed fear of Madison about the possibility of voting being opened to all classes of people in England. Following Madison's convictions here means that only certain elites should have the right to vote.

And, btw, how much of Israel's OT government should we use as a model for our government here when Israel's government was a theocracy constructed for what was for the most part a homogeneous population? And was the gov't of OT Israel as limited as the Acton Institute stated?

And what about democracy and the rule of the people? Such a structure seems to be out of sync with either Israel's OT government--even in the Deuteronomy passages cited and were falsely claimed to support the electing of rulers-- or what was described in the NT?

And what if certain sectors of the private sector keep growing, shouldn't government also grow so that it could keep all from the private sector accountable?

It seems that here, the references to the Scriptures, The Constitution, and limited government are there for appearances and are to be self-congratulatory. This is especially true when we are facing serious problems with the environment and the consolidation of wealth and power seen in the private sector.
 

Jacoby Ellsbury And The Fast Food Workers' Plight

Does Jacoby Ellsbury even have a clue? Does he know that he is a role model? And does he know for whom he is a role model?

Not too long ago, Jacoby Elssbury became an ex-Red Sox by signing on with the evil empire during MLB's third season--the third season is what I call the time of signing free agents. Ellsbury signed a 7 year contract for over $150 million dollars where he will earn just over $21 million per year. In other words, Ellsbury's contract negotiations were intended for him to grab as much as he could. 

Ellsbury getting as much as he could is celebrated by the Free Market. But the problem that exists is when everybody tries to do the same. The end result is not just that some will get what they want while others will not, some may not even get what they need. And the deprivation of this last group hardly raises an eyebrow in society. Certainly, that is not the problem with those playing in the Major Leagues, but is the problem in real life.

So Ellsbury has become a role model for those who grab for everything with no regrets. And he is such a role model first for those who are at the top of their game regardless of the occupation. Business executives, especially CEOs, who negotiate for deals where they can get as much as they can out of the company in exchange for the promise of a positive performance follow Ellsbury's example. He becomes a role model for shareholders who demand that, as owners of a business, they should receive as much as they can from their businesses. And this goes so on down the line until what we see are laborers, who actually create the wealth with their work, are rewarded the least because of what is left of the pie. Of course there are those who are worst off than the laborers, these are the unemployed who are most destitute.

The fast-food workers I marched with on December 5th, for example, find that the only slice of the pie that is left for them is minimally mandated by law, it is $7.25/hr. This is regardless of the fact that the demographics of the employees show that we are dealing with much more than teenagers. And there are many conservatives who not only oppose the workers' demands, they oppose the minimum wage in principle and are thus are willing for the workers to get even a smaller piece of the pie than they do now.

We should note that workers's demands for good pay and just conditions have been opposed before. In fact, some conservatives blame the demise of some of America's past industries on unions and their ability to get for their members what they could. Likewise, some conservatives now blame the fast food workers' demand for higher pay on today's 'entitlement culture' and this is despite the fact that the raise these workers are asking for is not a handout for do nothing but a recognition for work being done. So with some, grabbing all one can get for oneself is celebrated while, for others, it is scorned. That means that grabbing whatever one can for oneself is a privilege reserved for those who are closer to the top and a stigma for the rest.

So we see two problems here. First, when those at the top try to grab as much as they can, they tend not to leave enough for everybody else. Second, we see a double standard in play. And the acceptability of grabbing for everything one can is inversely related to one's need.

But Ellsbury is not just a role model for those at the top who embrace greed, he is one of many role models for those who want to be at the top but are currently not there. His example has given them something to shoot for. But this causes a dilemma because until a person is counted as privileged, grabbing as much as one can for oneself brings shame.

The more people there are who grab for everything they can for themselves, the more self-destructive society becomes. And as we become self-destructive, the most vulnerable of us are the first to go. And as more of us are engulfed in this grabbing ethic, we become dead to the suffering of those below us. We might toss a few coins to the most vulnerable for the sake of conscience or self-image, but we won't join them in their struggle. We won't do that because we are too preoccupied to feel their pain. We are too preoccupied with either supporting the status quo or with being too busy doing our own grabbing in a dog-eat-dog world.

The question we have to ask about this ethic of our grabbing for everything we can is this, if it is right for one person to do it, then why isn't it right for everybody? The answer, of course, is if all of us do it, we will destroy others first and then ourselves. So why should we celebrate when even one person practices this ethic?

The Problems Christians Have With Responding To The World's Needs

Greg Forster just contributed an article called The Radical Christian Approach To Poverty And Riches to The Gospel Coalition's blog. The approach to wealth and poverty which Forster recommends is that of attitude change. He charges the rich with 'arrogance' and the poor with 'envy.' He wants the rich and poor to regard each other as equals. He wants the rich to donate to the poor as part of their stewardship and he wants the poor to be content and realize that they have enough to be stewards of before God. He wants a healing of the relationship between the rich and the poor so that no partiality is shown to either. His only other comment is to speak against massive redistribution. Unfortunately, if all of those involved do as he recommends, there will be no transition of those who are poor from poverty. Thus, one has to guess whether the title of his article was written tongue-in-cheek.

Are there good things in this post? Certainly. First, all of us need to look to the Scriptures for an attitude check. Riches do not justify arrogance while poverty does not justify envy. Second, Forster acknowledges the great wealth disparity that exists during our time. Third, our dignity is not found in our wealth but in being made in God's image and our stewardship. Fourth, Forster wants a healed relationship between the rich and the poor.

But there are glaring errors and omissions as well. The title suggests that the article addresses wealth and poverty in society. It does not. Rather, it addresses wealth and poverty among Christians. Forster doesn't talk about how we should react to nonChristians' struggle with poverty in society. Rather, Forster wants everybody to take the Christian approach to their lot in life. Thus, Forster has nothing to say to nonChristians who suffer through poverty but to believe in Christ so that one can adopt the proper attitude.

The trouble with addressing poverty by repeating Biblical instructions given to the Church is that it fails to recognize the differences that exist between society in general and the Church. The Church is a voluntary organization consisting of those who believe in Christ. Now unless Forster believes that society must be made up of Christians only, how is telling nonChristians who are poor to take up the task given to Christians only? That task is to endure the suffering of injustice to bring glory to God. 

Another trouble with Forster's article is that the only changes he calls for are attitude changes which are to result in behavioral changes. Both the rich and the poor are to be stewards of what God has given them. The rich are not to be arrogant but are to be 'generous' and serve those in need while the poor should work to become economically independent. As part of a larger solution, such attitudes and actions are good. But to reduce the solution to poverty to changing attitudes about work and possessions is overly simplistic.

First, Forster's reductionism only recognizes the responsibility of the individual in how one should react to poverty. Thus, his only solution to poverty is to tell the rich and the poor to shape up. What this ignores is society's corporate responsibility for poverty. In other words, the political and economic systems which society embraces also share some of the blame for our problems with poverty. This is why Martin Luther King said that it is insufficient to address poverty by merely donating money to those in need, we must also examine, and possibly change, the system that puts so many in need. According to King, society has a significant responsibility, and that means those of us living in society have a collective responsibility, to help those in need.

If we look at Jeremiah 22, we see the prophet comparing the responses of 2 different king to the poor. One of the kings, Shallum, ignored the poor to increase his wealth and glory. Read about Josiah's righteous response to the poor in verse 16.

He [Josiah] pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; Then it went well.  Is not that what is means to know Me? Declares the Lord.

Here, the king is charged with a responsibility defend and help those in need. The modern day translation of the Old Testament king here is THE GOVERNMENT. In fact, the Old Testament constantly warns us about Israel's two greatest sins: idolatry and the neglect and oppression of the vulnerable and needy. 

But lest we think that the above is just a religious charge, we need to consider what our troops were commanded to do to German citizens who lived near Hitler's death camps. Our troops were commanded to force the German citizens who live under Nazi rule to tour the camps and see both the dead those who barely survived so they could confront their personal and corporate responsibility for the Holocaust. With wealth disparity increasing, where are the troops who would make us see, up close and personal, how we have failed in our corporate responsibility as a society to those in need? Please note that there  I am not equating the suffering of the victims of the holocaust with the poor of our nation. Certainly the suffering during the Holocaust was horribly beyond the pale. But I am equating the social responsibility that the Germans had then to the victims of the system their society embraced with what we have now toward the victims of the system our society embraces. Individual responsibility plays a role in creating and maintaining poverty; but so does corporate responsibility as well.

This partially leads to the final problem with Forster's article. The alternatives that he provides to our current system are highly flawed and designed to support the status quo. One of Forster's alternatives is to say we could hate wealth, but then he shows that that is not biblical. He then says that we could embrace a massive redistribution of wealth; but he claims that such is not justified. In all of this, our current economic system is receiving a double coat of white paint to hide its dirt and flaws. 

In addition, Forster's comments here show a lack of awareness of both the system and the alternatives. Our current economy is gradually embracing neoliberal capitalism. Such an economy was militarily forced down the throats of many countries so that freedom and democracy were decimated. In the comments, I provided three examples of where this occurred, it occurred in Chile in '73, Argentina in '76, and Russia in the 1990s under Yeltsin, and Forster's response showed that he did not know about any of these situations. His claim was that democracy and free markets go hand-in-hand.

We could summarize Forster's inadequate response to poverty in this article by noting that it typifies the American Conservative Christian response to most of the world's crises. The American Conservative Christian response to the world's problems are many times wholly inadequate because of our self-absorption and our resulting lack of awareness of the world outside of our Christian faith.

ONIM For The Week Of June 10, 2013

Churches Demand Apology from Government For Misrepresenting The Poor -- Christian Today(UK)

Church Leaders Call For Action To Address Global Hunger -- Christian Today(UK)

Why Christian Groups Oppose America's Anti-Prostitution Stance -- Christianity Today

7 Biblical Tests For Christians And Music -- Christianity Today

Slavery Did Not End In The 19th Century With Wilberforce -- Christian Post

For Conservatives, The Future Looks Dim ... And Gay -- Religion Dispatches

Evangelicals Launch $250,000 Immigration Campaign -- Huffington Post