Note: Today we bring you a sermon from a brother in Kenya, Bishop Simon O. MacOnyango of the Kenya Center for World Evangelism. This sermon is reprinted here with his kind permission.
Preached By Brother S. O. MacOnyango on 11th August 2013 at Kahoya Believers Fellowship, Eldoret.
Main Text: 1 Corinthians 1:21-29 … New Living Translation (NLT)
……20 So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish.
21 Since God in his wisdom (revelation or divine truth) saw to it that the world would never know (receive his truths or receive Him by revelation) him through human wisdom (head knowledge – mental assent), he has used our foolish preaching (revelation) to save those who believe (receive the truth or revelation). 22 It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom (mental assent). 23 So when we preach that Christ was crucified (the revelation), the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense (doesn’t make sense against all proven human facts)….24 But to those called by God (embrace the truth) to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom (revelation) of God.25 This foolish plan of God (revelation) is wiser than the wisest of human plans (mental assent), and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.26 Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise (had revelation or had the capacity to receive the divine truths) in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. 27 Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish (not appealing to our mental faculties) in order to shame those who think they are wise (have head knowledge or mental assent). And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.28 God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important.29 As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God (when and if we receive these divine truths)
Note: words in brackets are mine and only meant for teaching purposes
John 7:38….New American Standard Bible (NASB)….38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being (from the revelatory not mental assent) will flow rivers of living water.’”
Many of us Christians have mental assent of things of God and take it for FAITH….We may know that God exists but actually DO NOT have faith that HE exists. Mental assent looks so much like faith that there is a very fine thin line between the two.
Mental assent means intellectually accepting or knowing the Word of God to be facts but not receiving it as a Truth – admiring it and agreeing with it BUT not receiving the revelatory element of it …. That doesn’t do us any good. In essence, mental assent agrees with and knows more about God but does not believe in God.
The mental assent agrees and knows that the Bible came from God and that it is God’s word BUT does NOT take it as revelation, and that every Word of it is a fact BUT NOT the Truth see! When a crisis comes however, s/he says, “Yes, I know (NOT BELIEVE) the Bible is true, but it does not work for me in this situation.” We often quote Scriptures we don’t really believe to be TRUTHS.
We so many times mentally affirm the promise! In many years in my ministry and family life I lived like that BUT wondering why I am not making any haed way despite my superb memory of the scriptures….. that ……. “God will supply all my needs according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. Phil 4:19”,….. that in itself was beautiful …. but for so many years I never took these bible verses as God’s TRUTHS by making them personal. Such a Christian may be successful in knowing much about the Word, but as far as spiritual life is concerned has failed. The true believer is a doer of the Word who receives it as a TRUTH. The believer builds on rock, while the mental assent builds on sand. (See Matthew 7:24-27.)…… In Africa witchdoctors, sorcerers, and fortune tellers keep Bibles as one of their paraphernalia….if you happen to consult one…the first consultation is for you the client to open a bible at random…. keeping the bible in itself DOES NOT help a thing….we can have so many of them in public places, in public schools etc, but who teaches people to receive it as GOD’S TRUTH not like any other novel!!
A variation of mental assent is “sense/head knowledge.” This is the attitude that says, “If I cannot see it and weigh it against all available facts known, then it is not real. I’ll believe it when I see it.” The Bible tells us, “We walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:17). This means that faith and sense knowledge are not compatible….I am not against teaching of critical thinking because I am a student of the same.
Faith is the substance and evidence of things that our sense of conventional knowledge cannot see. (See Hebrews 11:1, for definition of Faith). Sense knowledge is the biggest obstacle to faith because; in many cultures we are trained and conditioned to live by our five senses. If we cannot analyze something and empirically conclude that it actually works, then we do not believe it is real. However, God says He has promised is already reality. Yet it won’t become manifested reality in our lives until we believe it is real before we see it-through fully trusting in Him and His Word. That is how faith operates.
Again, the Bible says “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1. Note carefully that this verse does not say that faith is the EVIDENCE of things that do not exist. It says that faith is the evidence of the things you CANNOT SEE.
For example, you cannot always see how God will meet your need. However, God says, “It’s already met; believe me.” That is living by faith. If you live by any other means, you will have high blood pressure, depression, and fear and end up in a mental institution. You will live in frustration because you will try to figure out how to meet your own needs (even spiritual) when you do not have that capability. God says, “I will supply all your needs. I have everything worked out. Trust Me to do it.”
If we are mentally assenting to the God’s word and NOT receiving it as a divine truth, we will continue to live below your privilege for too long as SONS. We will need to start living by faith (the truth of God’s word) so that God’s Word can come to pass in our lives and ministries and in every spheres of our involvement.
I may say “Well, I need more faith.”……Brethren Faith is SIMPLE BUT NOT EASY to obtain. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17). Here is the thing……..When we receive the Word then exercise that knowledge (the heard WORD) by the enablement of the Spirit we let it filter through our knower man to our spirit man then we receive it as a revelation (GOD’s TRUTH), it is then that our faith begins to grow…..
I HAVE known many Christian that I have personally led to the saving faith and BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST who never went beyond the baptism leave alone to command anything in that NAME!…in fact one Brother remarked to me during one of my teaching sessions……Brother Simon, you are a remarkable teacher of the word…I realized that He truly agreed with every scripture I put forth…. But down the line what I did to the Brother at the river here in Eldoret was ‘DRY CLEANING IN JESUS NAME’ not ‘BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME’. Why? Because he did not receive my teachings on Baptism as the TRUTH but FACTS of the Bible!
Mental assent is what defeats the child of God who regularly attends church more than anything else. Most Christians are not missing it in what they know about the scripture, but in what they believe (receive as truths). Faith is an act that emanates from our spirit NOT mental faculty! Mental assent just says; “I am blessed and highly favored” while refusing to receive it as a truth provided in the Word. Here is what mental assent is:
• Mental assent knows 100% that the Bible is the word of God .
• Mental assent agrees and knows that Jesus is the Son of God.
• Mental assent agrees and knows that Jesus was raised from the dead.
• Mental assent will say I believe the Bible from Genesis to Revelations. Mental assent knows that BAPTISM IS IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST …. Mental assent is beautiful, BUT IT WILL NOT embrace the truth …. Every time we read the Word or hear good teaching then we let filter through our mental faculty….that is the process…. by the enablement of the Spirit of God and put it to practice, our Spiritual life is strengthened a little more. The Word is the seed. Once we put the seed in the nursery (knower man) then it turns into a seedling then eventually transfer it to the actual garden (the spirit man) the seed is going to grow because the power is in the seed.
James 1:22 says, “Do not merely listen to the Word and so deceive yourselves. DO WHAT IT SAYS.” This verse separates mental assent from faith. James says if we think listening to the Word by itself will make the difference, then we are deceiving ourselves. We must learn what we have heard and received by believing and then acting upon it in faith NOT AS A MATTER OF RITUAL.
Jesus said to the chief priests and elders of the people…. There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first son and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ I will not, he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. (Matt 21:28-31)
The second son mentally assented to the words of the father but never did anything beyond receiving the word.
Although the first son was initially rebellious (hardened in the heart) he ended up agreeing to his father’s request and doing it. Jesus was showing us that we cannot just say we know BUT we must believe. WE HAVE TO LIVE OUT OUR FAITH BY DOING WHAT GOD ASKS. WE SHOULD NOT ONLY AGREE WITH HIS WORD AND WILL, BUT ALSO embrace it as a TRUTH not simply what the Bible says (facts)….
Brethren, faith is not a feeling though it produces a feeling. Faith will make us feel good when our bodies are healed, our needs are met and our lives are victorious! But it is not a feeling! The feeling and the healing (manifestation) follows the saying and the doing (faith)! You say it by faith (knowing it to be the TRUTH not what the Bible simply says) when you feel nothing or even feel terrible and you act like what God has said is true. This is so simple that a child can understand it yet most children of God struggle with grasping it.
May the Lord bless us and every one of us in the coming weeks!
Brother Simon MacOnyango
Blog
-
Faith vs. Mental Assent
-
Joel Watts – Question 6 – Answer 1 (Profit)
Links:Question 6
Elgin’s Answer
Joel’s Answer
Elgin Hushbeck – Question 6 – Reply 1 (Profit)Content:
(Note: Content corrected an updated 7/30/13, because the editor posted the wrong content.)
1) You say profits must be kept low. But terms like “low” and “high” are relative terms, and frankly very subjective. What is low or high is very likely to vary widely from person to person, and particularly between buyer and seller. What will be the basis for such determinations?
I think high profit would be something along the lines of what the former Exxon executive received as a retirement package. I must turn again to Aquinas. Money is consumable, unlike land and other means of production. To have more money than is consumable by the individual is against natural law (as Aquinas would state). To have consumable money making money consumable money, neither of which will ever be consumed, this is against natural law. If profit is consumed to provide for the poorest, it is a virtue. If profit is wasted (as in left only to consume itself), then it is sinful.
2) You say “But, to keep them low, one must employ external forces, such as government regulations.” How is government going to perform this role, and what gives you any confidence that they have the ability to fulfill this role?
“They” is not a term I thought we would rightfully use in a Republic. I would prefer the term “we.” The anti-trust/monopoly acts worked well until they were balkanized to the point of non-existence. Further, taxes based on high profit (profit unconsumed either in the means of production or in the means of comfort, but profit consumed only in the production of more profit) would likely yield a comfortable natural force, as was evident before the concept of low taxes means a better economy was the trend in the 1960’s.
3) You say you have different expectations for the profit and non-profit. What are these expectations, particularly when it comes to for profit and government?
I thought we were talking about profit and non-profit, not profit and government. I fully expect a profit organization to seek to make profit for the betterment of its members. A non-profit should seek to raise money for the betterment of others.
-
Elgin Hushbeck – Question 6 – Reply 1 (Profit)
Links:Question 6
Elgin’s Answer
Joel’s Answer
Joel Watts – Question 6 – Reply 1 (Profit)Content:
1.) You quote Scripture regarding pay. Are profit and the pay the same thing?
Well, there are clearly some differences; otherwise we would not have separate words. But at their core they are basically the same in that they are the compensation for services rendered.
Where they differ is in how they are paid. Wages are paid for a particular unit of time. But, if we look at a store owner selling a can of soup, it would be very difficult to if not impossible to determine the hours worked to get a can of soup on the self so it could be purchased. As such the store owner is paid for his or her work by the difference between the cost of the can of soup and the amount paid for the can of soup.
This difference also results in another key difference that is often overlooked. Most people see profit only in terms of gain. But there is no guarantee that anyone will purchase the can of soup. If someone works for a wage, they are virtually guaranteed to receive payment for services rendered; as such there is little, if any, risk. With profit, there is rarely any guaranteed and normally there is significant risk.
I have worked both ways. When I worked for a wage I have always been paid for the work I did. When I worked for profit there have been many times where I have not. If my costs ended up higher than I had expected, then my compensation was reduced. In fact, there were many times when I wrote checks for my employees’ wages, and did not have enough money to even pay all my bills, much less myself.
So at their core, they are both compensation, but they vary in how they are paid and the risk involved.
2.) Do you see only one “profit?” In other words, you speak about profit motive, yet we have seen in recent economic epochs the increasing split level of meaning applied to profit. Do you believe in different profits or is there only one profit, with just different avenues to get there?
Similar to the previous question they are all compensation, but there are two things that distinguish among the various types of profit. One is in what the compensation is in exchange for, is it in exchange for a good or a service? There is at times some confusion about this because at times the service being provided is not clear, and at times not understood by many people.
The other is in the number of people being compensated, is it the single owner of a small store, or thousands of stockholders of a corporations?
3.) You write: “You pay a store in exchange for goods and services received.” I would contest that while this is philosophically the case, this is not always true. There are profit centers in business where profit is earned at a greater rate than with other products. Your statement seems to indicate you believe in a fair exchange. Economic practices no longer pretend this is true. Would you regulate fair exchanges? What if the exchange wasn’t fair?
At a minimum I would want to add a lot of qualifiers to these statements, but I would accept the general concept of a fair exchange as a goal, the main problem being how one defines “fair.” But if we ignore that issue for now, I do think there is a need for some regulation. To me the issue is not the existence of regulation, but the purpose or goal of regulation.
Regulation that aims at encouraging choice and competition is good. Because of the nature of regulation, regulation aimed at encouraging choice and competition is limited in nature, as too much regulation creates barriers to entry that stifle competition. On the other hand, regulation that seeks to impose some concept of fairness is doomed to not only to fail, but will ultimately make things worse.
Here is a case in point. A few years back Florida was hit by a hurricane and there were charges of price gouging by gas stations. In response, the Florida Attorney general made a very public point of saying that the states anti-gouging law would be strictly enforced. As chance had it, a few weeks later, another part of Florida was hit by another hurricane. Sure enough this time there was virtually no gouging – because there was no gas.
It is easy to understand, and in fact is simply the law of supply and demand in action. When stations were “gouging” with the first hurricane they were effectively rationing it and people purchased just what they need. After the second hurricane, they simply filled up “just in case” and stations quickly ran out. In addition, with the first hurricane station owners were encouraged to take extra efforts, perhaps purchasing a generator and getting an electrician to wire it up knowing they could recoup their costs. If they did that in the second case, they could easily be charge with “gouging” and end up in court and even fined. So why take the risk?
As for what to do if the exchange is not fair, the first question is who determines what is and is not fair? For me the best solution is to ensure consumers have choice. This will encourage business owners to provide the best value to customers. Again a case in point: There is a lot of competition among restaurants, and prices vary widely. Some places charge more for a lunch than others. But who is to say that one place is unfair and the other is fair? If I have a problem with one restaurant, I can very easily go someplace else.
The bottom line is that given all the factors that are involved in a transaction, so many of which are subjective, it is simply impossible for the government to regulate this in any effective manner and history is pretty clear that the more they try, the worst they make things. Thus government should instead focus on making sure there is choice and competition for consumers and then let consumers decide for themselves which of the many suppliers provide them with the best value.
-
Joel Watts – Question 6 (Profit) – Answer
Links:
Question 6
Elgin Hushbeck – Question 6 (Profit) – Answer
For we do not aim to be rich merely for our own sakes, but for the sake of our children, our neighbors, friends and most of all, for our community. For the private fortunes of individuals are the wealth of the state. (Cicero, De Officiis)
St. Thomas Aquinas cites Augustine in saying “The businessman who is eager for profit blasphemes at his losses, and he lies and swears falsely over the price of his goods. These, however, are the vices of the businessman himself, not of business in general, which can be conducted without these vices” (Summa Theologica II-II, 77, 4)
For more of what could be considered my philosophical starting point, see here.
1.) What is the value of profit as a motive for action in the marketplace and competition as a regulating force?
The theology of the scientific theory of evolution is one benefiting us here, I believe. “Life will find a way” is a statement common in movies about dinosaurs resurrected for our benefit and the creators’ profits. But, in this Hollywood statement are tenets of great philosophical struggles. Life will find a way.
Why must life find a way? Because the forces of non-life are always present and are the primary substance of the universe. As of yet, we have found life only on one planet, in one solar system, in one small part of the growing universe. Non-life is the constant of the universe. Yet, we have life.
“Find.” Find implies motive. We must find a way because it is natural. Competition and push-back are those things that drive us in our need to find a way to survive.
The same thing occurs with profit. Without the desire to live by what we make, we do not flourish as humans, but languish as natural beasts of the field. I believe in the concept of human flourishing, that of finding out who we are meant to be. I believe humans are naturally competitors. We compete against our siblings, against our schoolmates, and against one other in the pursuit of jobs, fame, and fortune. Profit and not material gain such as land, goats, and children is the modern goal of that pursuit. To deny, then, the pursuit of profit as a human need is to suggest we have somehow “become as the angels” have thus have need of nothing, not even love. The pursuit of profit is part of human flourishing.
At small levels, competition does present a regulating force; however, when profits are too large and thus power too easily bought, competition is easily snuffed out. Even Adam Smith knew this. When profits are kept low, competition is naturally occurring because more people are able to invest in order to achieve profits. Further, when profits are kept low, this means consumers have more money to spend. But, to keep them low, one must employ external forces, such as government regulations.
2.) Do you trust profit making organizations more than non-profit? Under what circumstances?
This is a rather difficult question to ask, given the wide range of organizations under those banners. Even non-profits must make money in order to say afloat.
I would venture to guess that the reasons many non-profits form as such are the tax laws. If we were to rectify them first, we might see the end of this dubious separation.
As far as a matter of trust, I do not think I can fully apply that term to a non-human entity. Corporations are not persons, my friend. I do, however, have different expectations for the two groups. -
Elgin Hushbeck – Question 6 (Profit) – Answer
Links:
Question 6
Joel Watts – Question 6 (Profit) – Answer
What is the value of profit as a motive for action in the marketplace and competition as a regulating force? Do you trust profit making organizations more than non-profit? Under what circumstances?
While profit and the profit motive are often maligned they are the driving force in most of that we do, nor should this be seen as a problem. As 1 Timothy 5:18 says “For the Scripture says, ‘You must not muzzle an ox while it is treading out grain,’ and, ‘A worker deserves his pay.’” For some, the concept of wages and profit may seem like apples and oranges. But they are really the same thing, the compensation we get for our work.
Like many things, the profit motive can be both overdone and underdone. More importantly, it needs to operate within a system that allows it to be productively channeled, and that system is the free market system driven by choice for consumers and competition among suppliers. If businesses do not provide good value, customers can go elsewhere. Even most not-for-profit organizations must provide value in order to receive donations.
Government has no such driving force. This also explains why government is so wasteful. It has nothing to do with the people, but with the incentives, and the system in which they operate. Government has no competition, and can just demand money in the form of taxes. In fact, to be innovative and save money, for much of government is counter-productive. Administrators who do this would be “rewarded” by having their next years’ budget cut, whereas wasteful administrators are likely to have their budgets increased even more.
When it operates within a system of choice and competition, the profit motive has some very positive outcomes. The first is a desire to improve. Whether this is an individual who goes to school so as to get a higher paying job, or a business that wants to attract more customers, the profit motive drives improvement. The second is that the desire to improve, when combined with competition, pushes people to search for new and better ways to do things; in short it results in innovations.
This is something that most not for profits simply cannot do. Not-for-profits can consume and distribute wealth but they do not create it. To be sure they can adapt to innovations, though they often have trouble doing even that, but rarely do they ever drive innovation. This is particularly true for Government because rather than innovation, government regulates, which by definition hinders innovation. Regulation looks back and seeks to standardize past practices, rather than looking forward to create new ones.
The side effect of all this is a tremendous amount of good for humanity. This is seen both in the increase in the standard of living, and in the tremendous array of products and services that make our lives better, nearly all of which we have because of the profit motive.
In addition, because most resources are limited, the profit motive, when combined with choice and completion drives a more efficient use of these limited resources. The more efficient you are the lower your costs and the higher the profit. Before Rockefeller got into the oil business, most of the oil produced was simply wasted. It was wasted because no one knew what to do with it so it was just thrown away, or wasted because of leaks and losses during transportation, but it was wasted.
Rockefeller sought to improve all aspects of the process, from funding the development of some 300 new uses for the “gunk” that used to be thrown away, to better delivery systems that reduced loss. As a result the cost of the oil used at the time for light dropped from what was for most an unaffordable 58 cents per gallon to an affordable 8 cents, allowing them to have light at night. In the process he created a vast amount of wealth, a vast number of jobs and increased the standard of living for millions.
The profit motive not only benefits the society at large, it benefits the individual as well. There is, of course, the desire for self-improvement it instills, but it goes deeper. At the heart of a system governed by choice and competition is the exchange of value. The employer pays you in exchange for a certain amount of work. You pay a store in exchange for goods and services received.
While the ultimate goal of a business is to earn a profit, if a business makes profit their primary goal, they are sure to fail. This “paradox of business” is simple to understand: who wants to deal with such a business? To attract customers, a business must provide value in exchange for the money they receive. To grow a business must provide a better value than their competition.
To do this one cannot just focus on what they want, they must be concerned with the needs and wishes of others. This is why most companies provide far better customer service than government does. For profit companies are driven by the profit motive which forces them to be concerned with the wishes and desires of their customers.
This also goes a long way towards explaining why those who support free market solutions driven by the profit motive tend to give more to charity than those who support government solutions. The profit motive operating in systems governed by choice and competition reduces poverty, increases the standard of living, make society better, and makes the individual better. What’s not to like?
-
An Early Look at the Leadership of Pope Francis
By: Rev. Dr. Robert R. LaRochelle
In my book Crossing the Street, released by Energion Publications in 2012, I attempt to show the relationship of Catholicism and Protestantism to one another. I also advocate for the importance of recognizing the strong ‘ecumenical center’ that most Christians share in common. I encourage both Catholics and Protestants and their leaders to take active steps in getting to understand each other’s tradition far better than is all too often the case.
Since I wrote that book, a significant event has happened in the Roman Catholic Church. On March 13 of this year, the Papal conclave selected a new church leader, i.e. a new Pope. In my view, each pontificate plays an incredibly significant role in presenting the face of Catholicism to the world. In Crossing the Street, I demonstrate the important differences in the papacies of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. I also make the claim that contemporary Catholics can often be readily identified as either ‘John Paul II’ or‘John XXIII’ Catholics. Those more inclined to align themselves with John Paul II are sympathetic to the post Vatican II church’s movement away from innovation and toward doctrinal and liturgical uniformity. Those in the John XXIII camp tend to bemoan what they see as a halt to necessary changes in the church, changes which reflect, in their view, a healthy openness, inclusiveness, and ecumenicity.
What is absolutely fascinating is what the new Pope proceeded to do quite recently. In what many saw as a stunning move, he announced that the church was going to canonize (i.e. declare as saints) both John XXIII and John Paul II. Interestingly enough, the announcement that John Paul would be declared a saint in the near future was anything but a surprise. Catholic traditionalists have been promoting this in recent years and had a strong advocate in Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. It was generally acknowledged in church circles as inevitable.
On the other hand, many Catholic progressives were concerned that the cause of John XXIII had fallen by the wayside. In the same way, Catholics of this persuasion have expressed similar concerns regarding the interest (or lack thereof) in canonizing Dorothy Day, Oscar Romero or the women martyrs of El Salvador, including the American laywoman Jean Donovan. Thus the decision to include John XXIII in this announcement, despite the glaring absence of the second miracle required by ordinary church law for canonization, was seen as a pleasant surprise.
Now, while I understand full well that a Protestant might be troubled by the theology that undergirds the canonization process, the fact remains that in this joint selection Pope Francis sent a signal to those within the Catholic Church and those outside of it. In effect, Pope Francis was affirming that there is variety and pluralism within Catholicism. In essence, he demonstrated that the Catholic Church is not as either/or as some inside of it would like it to be or some outside of it it believe that it is! This decision strikes me as a powerful affirmation of what some might call a ‘big tent’ view of the Catholic Church, a term whose origins are found in describing American political parties. Others in the church might say that this is in keeping with the ‘ Here Comes Everybody’ approach to Catholicism, a phrase coined by the Irish literary giant James Joyce.
This recognition of pluralism is exhibited in the recent release of Francis’ first encyclical, Lumen Fidei. In an unprecedented move, this Papal letter to the world represented the joint efforts of both Francis and his predecessor, Benedict XVI. A close reading of the letter demonstrates a diversity of influences. Some have actually gone so far as to speculate as to who wrote which parts. Though they did not sit down to co-author this work, the finished product, in Francis’ name, represents perspectives which, if not different from his own, at least show evidence of differing starting points and emphasis.
Pope Francis I has already drawn the attention of the world in his outspoken advocacy of the importance of church leadership in setting good example and siding with those who are poor. On the day I am writing this, Francis has scolded priests and nuns who drive around with the latest model of automobile. He has affirmed the goodness of all people of good will, including those who might not believe in God. On the other hand, he has not, as yet, made any significant moves to change any of the controversial policies of the church. Thus to brand him a progressive or someone not attuned to a traditional Catholicism would not be fair.
It will be interesting, however, to see how and where this Pope evolves over the course of his pontificate. Will his tendency toward openness and his true sense of the inclusiveness of the entire Catholic tradition, evidenced in the canonization announcement and the encyclical, eventually lead to a rethinking of some long standing church policies? Only time will tell, but, for now, it is fair to say that in Francis, both Catholics and Protestants can find a significant religious leader, one deeply committed to bearing witness to Jesus in this needy and broken world!
Stay tuned!!! ….
Rev. Dr. Robert R. LaRochelle is pastor of Second Congregational Church, UCC, Manchester, CT. He is the author of Energion titles So Much Older Then …, Crossing the Street, and the forthcoming Til We Lay Our Trophies Down (2015). -
Elgin Hushbeck – Question 5 Reply 3 – The Justice System
One of the huge problems with this discussion is that you are extremely sloppy with the presentation of your claims, frequently without any clarifying examples, such that I am often left wondering if you are really that wrong, or if you actually mean something other than what you seem to say; but if so, what else is rarely clear. For example, you mentioned that “We live in a Republic of laws” and that “our Founders hated democracy and instead placed us within a Republic.” Then you go on to claim that I think our present system “is a democracy.” So the natural understanding of this is that you are claiming that I believe in direct democracy, the type of democracy that the founding fathers argued against.
While this would be the natural understanding, it suffers from the problem that it is completely wrong. In fact, in my book, I detail the problem of direct democracy, why the founders opposed it and were correct to do so, and why they thought a Republic a superior system. Given this, your comments are either wrong, or they simply do not make sense.
As for us living in a Republic of Laws, unfortunately that is now past tense, and least in its normal sense of living in a Republic that is under the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is not some vague abstract concept, but a pretty well defined one. At its core is the concept that everyone is both equal before the law, and all are under it. It also includes the idea that the law itself is something clear and understandable. Something we can all follow. This is hardly the case today.
The law now is so vast and complex as to be completely beyond comprehension. Even Lawyers must specialize. Thus by definition we cannot all be equal under the law, because some can afford the lawyers for whom the law is not something that we all live under, but something they can use as a tool, to be manipulated and for those rich enough or with the right connections, even shaped.
At one time, one could point to the Constitution, but sadly it is largely of only historical significance. Numerous examples of this could be given, but the simple fact is that the Supreme Court has become a yearly constitutional convention such that today it really does not matter what the Constitution does or does not say; it only matters what a majority of 5 justices on the court says it means. Thus the court acts more as a council of kings, than a court. Thus it should not be of any surprise that it is now the site of huge political battles.
Still more damaging to rule of law is the clear double standard that exists. Administration officials repeatedly give, in the words of James Clapper, the” least untruthful” response and nothing happens. People have gone to jail for lying to Eric Holder’s employees, but he was not truthful with Congress and nothing happens.
Frankly, while many members of this administration and the executive branch have not been truthful, and there is no doubt that laws were broken, but rather than punished, some of the key figures have even been promoted. In the end, I really do not expect anything to happen. The Democrats, their supporters and the mainstream media will protect them. There will be some heat for a little while, but at some point we will be told that it is old news and it will be allowed to quietly go away. For all intents and purposes, the administration is above the law.
In fact one of the key words of defining this administration is lawless. If the administration wants something done, and Congress fails to act the way they want, they just do it themselves. Thus for example, even though Congress was making progress on the Dream Act, or more likely to undercut Senator Rubio who was close to working out a compromise, Obama did it by Executive order, even though in the process he created a new legal category, but without any actual legislation to support it, something that until now was considered impossible. Under the rule of law it would be. Again many other examples could be given.
So where is the Rule of Law? We are not governed by the rule of law, but by whatever you can get away with. This depends, not on the law, but on how strong your supporters are, and how far they are willing to go.
Thus even after the Inspector General found wrong doing; even after the IRS admitted that it has been wrong; even after clear evidence that laws were broken; even after all the subsequent statement in conflict with each other and with the truth; Even with at least one official taking the 5th; you claim that “The IRS did its job and should be commended.” Such a statement says nothing about the IRS, but instead speaks only to your objectivity.
Sadly we have the Chicago machine come to Washington. If you are in the machine’s good graces, they will throw benefits of various sorts your way. One of the reasons the stimulus bill was so ineffective is that it was aimed more as rewarding supporters than any actual stimulus. On the other hand, if you oppose the administration, you could have the FBI, ATF, OSHA, IRS, or any numbers of other government agencies descend on you, as has happened.
As for the example of a Senator pleading with Sebelius to grant a waiver, you seem to have missed the point entirely, which was that these decisions should not be a part of the political process in the first place.
That you are factually incorrect and thoroughly confused about what I am actually arguing does not mean that I am not properly addressing the issue. Perhaps if you attempted to try and understand a point before resorting to personal attacks you could responds a bit more coherently. After all I am reliably informed that you have read my book and as such should not be making such elementary mistakes about what I actually believe.
Finally, as for Scriptural support for the death penalty, it is the only law found in all 5 books of Torah, which in and of itself says something about how important it is, and that it cannot just be written off as part of the law. I think it is also being referenced in Romans 13:1-4. Act 25:10-11, is more neutral given the context, and instead takes it as a given, but it is hardly a condemnation of the death penalty.
-
Political Debate – Question #6
What is the value of profit as a motive for action in the marketplace and competition as a regulating force? Do you trust profit making organizations more than non-profit? Under what circumstances? -
Question 5 – Second Reply Set – The Justice System
Combining Replies from both Elgin Hushbeck, and Joel Watts.
Question #5
Reply by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.
Reply by Joel Watts
Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. Response #1
Joel Watts Response #1[6/24/13 – I inadvertently posted the wrong content for Joel Watts’ reply. The corrected text is below. – HN]
Response #2 by Joel Watts:
1.) The question you propose – justice or rules – is not a difficult to answer. We live in a Republic of laws, thus the laws must be followed. This is a major issue with democracies —justice is based only on the whims of the majority. This is why our Founders hated democracy and instead placed us within a Republic. While the guilty may go free and the innocent be imprisoned, if the laws are followed, then the Republic is upheld. Perhaps this is what shades your view of the present system, you believe it is a democracy.
Unfortunately, “scandal” is a word attached to easily. The IRS did its job and should be commended. Congress, on the other hand, did not. This goes back to the law bit. We have ingrained in law certain procedures, such as the 30 day request. If these aren’t followed, then other actions are, by law, implemented. Given the rapid change in laws around the 501(c) entities, and the cutting of funds to this particular IRS department, the IRS will have to make sure.
As far as your poor caricature of the lung transport girl, I am unsure as to where to begin to straighten out your views. Sarah Palin is a liar. The rule is no more a death panel than the reverse of not having rules. Again, we live in a Republic with rules and laws, and yet you would deem them broken at every whim. If you cannot properly address the issue, I have to wonder what is the point?
2.) You support the death. Could you give me Scripture to that regard? Or is this purely a decision based on current philosophical thought?Response #2 by Elgin Hushbeck:
On a jury of peers, I agree that prejudices could be a problem, and one that cuts both ways. Some would be more likely to convict, some would be more likely to acquit.
As for citizen suits, I don’t see how these can be allowed, and still retain the rule of law or avoid a return to vigilantism. As for your example, that is just historically wrong. Segregation was correctly and properly challenged on a number of fronts, including suits by those who were harmed by it. Such suits are not the type of suits I am referring to. Normally to bring a suit one must be directly harmed. The suits I am referring to are those which until recently, would have been dismissed because there was no standing. In fact this is still the case in many areas of law, however in a few areas, particularly environmental law, special exceptions have been made and enforcement powers granted to individuals.
I would agree that “Justice is not retribution” but beyond that we have vastly different definitions for justice. Mine is a pretty traditional understanding that involves equity and righting wrongs. It is distinguished from revenge in pretty much the same way that Aristotle did, as a rational process that seeks equity, as opposed to an irrational response grounded in inflicting pain. Justice is rooted outside of ourselves, ultimately in God, and on earth through the state, which is why vigilantism is to be avoided. Revenge is rooted within ourselves and in our desires, rather than our reason. But this is a distinction that is often overlooked. -
Question 5 Response 1 – Elgin Hushbeck – Reforming the Penal System
Links:
Question 5
Elgin Hushbeck Reply to Question 5
Joel Watts Reply to Question 5
Joel Watts Question 5 Response 1
Second Reply Set (Both Joel Watts and Elgin Hushbeck)
Question: You write of finding “the least bad one.” Why are you so pessimistic that the situation cannot be righted? Even if Eden started off perfected but was later corrupted, doesn’t mean God found the “least bad one” in answers to fix the problem. We just need to find the way back to restore the intended philosophy. Is it your view that Government is simply a “necessary evil?” If so, how do you support that both from Scripture and from the American political tradition?
I say the least bad one, because all systems will have their flaws and weaknesses. In a perfect system the guilty would always be convicted and the innocent acquitted. I know of no such system. A system that focuses on making sure the guilty are always convicted will also convict the innocent at times. A system the focuses on making sure the innocent are always acquitted, will also at times acquit the guilty. Both have serious problems. While it is common to hold that it is better that 10 guilty people be acquitted than one innocent person be convicted, I have never been very comfortable with that, because it leaves 10 criminals free and emboldened to commit more crime. There is a Jewish saying, Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
As I write about in my book, one of the key problems with the current system it that it is almost completely cut off from the notion of justice. For far too many in the system, it is just about winning and losing. The goal of the prosecutor is have a very high conviction rate, the goal of the defense attorney is get their client off. I do believe the current system is tilted for the defense to the point that we have seen defense lawyers even lie in court and have nothing happen to them, as that is just “doing their job.” But still, the result is that miscarriages of justice occur on both sides.
In some respects this comes down to a question I ask in my critical thinking classes: Is it better to have justice, or that the courts follow the rules? There is no easy answer to this question. Both answers have problems. Despite what I have said above about the importance of justice, I still come down on the side of following the rules, but I too want a set of rules that maximize justice.
As for my view of Government, I am not a libertarian. I do believe that government has an important and vital role to play, but like so many good things, it has it limits. An analogy would be food: we need it, and it can be done well or poorly, but too much of it is a problem. Currently the Government is severely over weight and bloated. In too many ways, it has ceased to serve us, and we must now serve it and feed it.
Forget the scandal part of the IRS for the moment, just the idea that they can take over 1000 days to respond on a filing and when they do, they request a massive amount of information and give you 30 days to reply or your file will be closed and your $800 fee forfeited, is obscene! They can take all the time they want, but you have to jump when they say jump.
Another example of extreme abuse of power would be the case of the Sackett v. EPA, which is far from being unique. Sarah Palin was widely criticized on the left for her comment on Death Panels, and yet we have the spectacle of a congressmen pleading for the Secretary of HHS to suspend a ruling so that a girl can have a chance to live. Given all that has happened with this administration I cannot help but wonder if Sebelius would have been more receptive had the Congressman been a Democrat whose support was needed on a key piece of legislation.
So in my view government is important and vital, but should also be small with policies and laws made at the local level and at the federal only as a last resort.
Another way to understand my view is the analogy of addiction. Government at all levels and with both parties, is addicted to spending. But it is not just spending in general, but spending that benefits them, that allows them to claim that they “brought home the bacon” and thus get themselves reelected. The problem here is that while there is a lot of responsibility, there are very few votes to be had from spending on the Justice system, and thus it has been allowed to wither. Thus it is one of the few areas I would support a big increases in spending if done intelligently, which for government may be asking too much.
Question : What is your position on the death penalty?
I support the death penalty in at least some cases. For example, I think it was very appropriate for the Oklahoma City Bomber. In contrast, I think it a travesty of justice that the Norwegian mass murder will serve a maximum of 21 years for killing 77 people. That is a little over 3 months per person. He was 33 years old when convicted and will be 54 at most when released. Frankly even life in prison is hard to reconcile with any concept of justice in such a case.
