Energion Direct

Tag: Hushbeck

  • Do Unto Others

    by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.

     
    Golden ruleFor me, one of the most important moral teachings of Jesus, and in fact one found in various forms in a number of religions and moral philosophies, is his words in Matthew 7:12, “Therefore, whatever you want people to do for you, do the same for them, because this summarizes the Law and the Prophets.”
    At the core of this teaching is to treat people as individuals. We want people to treat us for who we are, not as a member of some group. This is one of the easiest commands to understand, and yet one of the hardest to practice, if for nothing else, because we are not God.
    God knows each one of us as an individual, our strengths and our weaknesses, our good, and our bad. In fact he knows us far better than we know ourselves, because he is truth, and we, unfortunately, lie even to ourselves. After all, if we were all being really honest with ourselves, how could 93% of US drivers place themselves in the top 50% of drivers?
    But we are not God. So when we look at those around us we often do not see people, we see labels and groups: rich, middle class, poor; boss, owner, and employee; Republican, Democrat, and Independent, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, and atheist just to name a very few.[ene_ptp] At this level it is not very detrimental. In fact, labels are necessary. While God can think in terms of individuals our capacity to do so is extremely limited, so we are forced to use those terms. While Jesus may have been able to walk into a village and speak in terms of the individual needs of each person who lived there, his followers could not and so we see him speaking more generally of groups like the poor.
    Where the real problem enters in is when to start to attach adjectives to the label. The rich are not just those have a significant amount of money, they are greedy. The poor are not just those who are lack financial resources, but are lazy. This is just as wrong when reversed. The rich are hardworking, the poor are oppressed.
    To be sure, there are some rich who are greedy just as there are those who are rich because they work very hard. Likewise, there are those who are poor because they are lazy and there are those who are poor because they are oppressed.  And if we are referring to the greedy rich or the lazy poor we may be OK, it is only when we reverse concepts and start seeing the rich as greedy or the poor as lazy that we really begin to run into trouble.  In logic this is call the fallacy of composition, taking something that is true of one part of a group and applying it to the whole group.
    When this logical fallacy is combined with our tendency to lie to ourselves, it becomes very pernicious. Just like we tend to see ourselves as better than average drivers, we tend to see ourselves as better than average people. Thus, as we begin to assign adjectives to the various groups, we will tend to assign the positive ones to the groups to which we belong, and the groups we disagree with will be given the negative ones.
    Is it any wonder that just a few verses before he said “do unto others…” Jesus asked, “Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?”  (Matt 7:3)  We are really good about seeing the problems in others. When we generalize this to the entire group this becomes demonization.
    When this moves into the political realm this can become downright ugly. It happens across the political spectrum. Republicans can be found who demonize Democrats. Democrats routinely demonize Republicans, Big Oil, Wall Street, and the rich in general.  And Independents can be found who demonize the other two. And, of course it is very common to hear people say that they’re all a bunch of crooks.
    This puts us in a dilemma. We do not have the mind of God and thus cannot think of a planet of 7+ billion individuals. To talk about people we must use labels. Yet when we do so we are dehumanizing people to some extent.
    The first thing we can do is remember that these are abstractions, and that we must be caution of the illusion of superiority.  One thing I do is that when dealing with individuals I try to forget all negative labels. Instead I start by assuming only positive ones. The person is just as smart, just as good, just as caring, well meaning, concerned, informed, etc., as I am.  I am prepared for them to be different in some respects from the group to which they belong. Now after talking, or watching them, they may demonstrate that they have some negative characteristics, but the conclusion is based on what they do or say, not because of the group that they belong to.
    In short, I try to treat others the way I would like to be treated, as an individual, and not just an indistinct member of a group. When it is someone I disagree with, I try extra hard.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]

    Click on any picture for more information or to order

     
     

  • Rich and Poor

    by Elgin Husbeck, Jr.

     
    Poor bannerOne of the key differences between left and the right, both religiously and politically is over how they view the “rich” and the “poor.” The Bible has a lot to say about both of these. For example, in response to an earlier article I wrote, the writer cited, Luke 19:25 “Indeed, it’s easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God.” He contrasted this with the poor saying, “Jesus, for instance, extols poverty ‘blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God.’”
    While the latter is probably not the best verse to cite in this context as it is referring to spiritual rather than economic poverty, there is no doubt that we are called to be concerned for the poor and to minister to their needs. But does this mean that God only wants poor people in his church? If you are “rich” must you, like the rich man in Mark 10:17-21, sell everything you own and give it to the poor?
    [ene_ptp]If so this would be a very strange commandment; after all, are we called to help the poor, or to be the poor? Is poverty a condition to be obtained or relieved? If we are all poor, who will be left to relieve our poverty? As I pointed out in an earlier article, it is pretty clear that selling all of one’s possessions was not a universal injunction.
    But that still leaves us with the question of who are the rich and who are the poor. For rest of this article I will focus on the poor. In the time of Jesus, the dividing line was pretty clear and stark. That is no longer true in the developed world as “poor” here has a vastly different meaning than in the third world. With the possible exception of the homeless, the “poor” in western countries would often be considered “rich” in developing countries.
    But the difference even varies among western countries. For example, it is common to hear criticism about how little the United States does for the “poor” when compared to the Social Democracies in Europe. But again definitions vary from country to country. Some define “poverty” as simply being lower than the national median income, others define it as the lower 30% of median income or some other value. The income level chosen will have a huge effect on the number of people in poverty.
    Another problem is that US poverty statistics often do not take into account assistance such as the earned income tax credit and food stamps. A study in 2000 showed that when these difference are taken into account the differences in the poverty rates between the US and European countries becomes very small. While poverty in the US has increased since that study, benefits have increased even faster, such that when adjusted for inflation those receiving benefits are slightly better off.
    When government assistance is taken into account the poor in the US are nowhere near poverty as it would have been understood in Jesus’s time. In fact, based on Census Bureau data of those classified as “poor,” 80% have air conditioning, 75% have a car and 31% have two. Most have cable or satellite TV, and over 50% have a computer with over 10% having 2 or more. More than half have a PlayStation, Xbox or other gaming system, and over 40% have internet access and a wide screen TV, and 25% of these have a digital recording system such as TIVO.
    In a recent GCP, co-host Chris Eyre commented on how difficult was to get by on assistance in England and often people did not even have enough food week to week. Yet here in the US, only 4% of poor children and 18% of poor adults report being hungry for lack of money within the last year, and on average their nutrition is virtually identical to the middle class. Only 4% report being temporarily homeless, nearly 50% live in single family homes or townhouses, while 42% own their own home. The average home of the poor in the US has 3 bedrooms, and over 2/3 have more than two rooms for each person.
    This means that he average poor person in America has more living space than the average person in most European countries. By their own descriptions, most of the poor in America had enough money to meet their essential needs and were able to access medical care for their family. In fact when factors such as buying power and cost of living are factored in, the standard of living for the poor in America falls into the range of the middle class in much of Europe.
    Now to be sure, these are statistics based on the whole. There will be exceptions and special cases. There will be those who fall between the cracks, so to speak. While the vast majority live homes that are “in good repair and without significant defects,” the vast majority is not all. But it is just as true that this hardly paints a picture of neglect.
    As a percentage of GDP, total US spending on social welfare is less than in Europe, but since the US is wealthier, per capita spending is higher. In addition, there are the personal factors. Some people, such as the mentally ill and drug addicts are particularly difficult to help and we need to do more in this area. But for most people in the US, the statistics are pretty clear that if you finish High school, and wait to get married before having children your chances of being poor are greatly reduced. In addition, there is a generational component here in that children who are raised in a married family are 80% less likely to be poor.
    Given this, perhaps the real way to combat poverty is to be found more in the church, and society as a whole, taking about the values of intact families, rather than pushing for a larger government and increased benefits.
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/poverty-and-the-social-welfare-state-in-the-united-states-and-other-nations#_ftnref8
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-america-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]

    Click on any pic for more information, or to order

  • Liberty, Religion and Commerce

    by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.

     
    [ene_ptp]In a recent presidential debate, John Kasich dismissed concerns about religious liberty by saying, “I mean, if you’re in the business of commerce, conduct commerce.” This is a common attitude, and one that sounds nice, but it totally misses the point of current debate. While a few people can always be found that will hold to virtually any position, Kasich’s response is hardly representative of the concern that many have when it comes to religious liberty, which is not a concern about selling to people you disagree with, but rather about having to participate in something your religious beliefs say is wrong.
    For example, the Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman had no problem selling flowers to homosexuals, and had even hired homosexuals. But she did not believe that her religious beliefs permitted her to participate in same sex marriages. If they had just wanted her to deliver some flowers to their wedding that would be one thing. But to her, using her creative ability to select flowers and arranging them for a wedding is far more than just simple commerce; it is participating in the event. As a result she was forced to make a choice to either violate her religious beliefs, or lose her business.
    As she put it, “A government that can force you to say something and express a message that is so deeply contrary to your core beliefs is terrifying. We are entering a whole new realm when we force people to express themselves and use their heart, their head and their hands to create something that violates who they are.”
    Yet that is where we are, as many florists, photographers, and wedding planners have discovered. Nor is this the only front on which religious liberty is threatened. While Hobby Lobby won before the Supreme Court, many seek to overturn the ruling, and with the death of Antonin Scalia that, and many other decisions, hang in the balance. In the medical field there is increasing pressure to force people participate in things that violate their religious views. Where once it was sufficient to simply refer someone to a colleague, that is increasingly seen as an act of intolerance not only to be condemned but prohibited. In short, those holding the banner of tolerance the highest, are becoming increasingly intolerant.
    The bigger government becomes and the more it controls, the less freedom people will have to make choices for themselves, and this is of particular importance when it comes to religious freedom. Many share Kasich’s view that if you’re in the business of commerce, conduct commerce. But I see two problems with this. First, it puts government, not you, in control of what does and does not violate your conscience.
    Sure, it has always done this to some extent, but it has been primarily in the role of restricting certain actions. For example, I believe that the British were correct to ban the practice of Sati (the wife being burned on the funeral pyre of her husband). It is something else to compel someone to do something contrary to their religious beliefs. Thus, we have for example allowed for conscientious objection to military service.
    The other problem is that it is impossible simply to not conduct commerce. In earlier times, this may have been possible, but given the modern economy, just how does one do that? Sure, as a photographer or florist, one could as a matter of policy say that you do not do weddings. However that option is not open to wedding planners. Sure, you could just say, don’t be a wedding planner, but what about those who already are and who have worked hard to establish and build a business? Are the concepts of liberty and tolerance really consistent with the government forcing people to abandon a life’s work? It is a very strange notion of freedom and tolerance that only “tolerates” what government agrees with.
    Then there are the issues raised by the Little Sisters of the Poor and the Hobby Lobby cases. If the left had their way these organizations would be forced to choose between violating their conscience and ceasing to operate. Hobby Lobby, for example, is often mischaracterized as not wanting to pay for birth control. In reality they have no problem with paying for most types of birth control, they only objected to those few that abort a pregnancy after conception. But either way, shouldn’t this be their choice? That someone wants an abortion is one thing, but on what basis can they demand that a 3rd party pay for it, particularly a third party that objects to it on religious grounds?
    True, the current threat is mild when compared to the very real persecution that is common in some parts of the world. Some complain that the threat is overblown and that such things could never happen here. But then for decades, I have heard the “it could never happen” argument many times on many issues only to have it happen. After all, when the defense of marriage act was passed in 1996, it was attacked as an overreaction. We were repeatedly told that same-sex marriage could never happen and no one was even asking for it. Thus the act was simply pandering to unrealistic fears, or even a thinly veiled homophobia. Less than 20 years later it was obvious that it was imposed by the courts.
    So count me as skeptical when it comes to claims that it could never happen here. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that tyranny and oppression are much more the norm. Liberty is hard to win, and difficult to hold.   Nor can we trust to the good intentions of those behind the current threat.
    As C. S. Lewis wrote, and the 20th century so clearly demonstrated, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]

  • Modern Socialism and the Bible

    by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.

     
    [ene_ptp]A common defense that modern supporters of socialism use is to claim that it is the model practiced by the early church in the book of Act, and thus it is the model we should seek to follow.   Acts 4:32 states,
    Now all the believers were one in heart and soul, and nobody called any of his possessions his own. Instead, they shared everything they owned. (ISV)
    While at first blush socialism seem to be a reasonable inference of this passage, there are a few problems with this view. First off, there is the question of whether this passage is prescriptive or descriptive. Is this something we are commanded to follow, or is this just describing what they did? That it is descriptive is supported by the fact that this certainly did not last very long, and we do not see other churches being told to follow this practice.
    Nor does it seem to have worked out very well, for what we do see is other churches being asked to contribute funds to support the church in Jerusalem.  It should be noted here that had sharing everything in common been a universal teaching of the early church, there would have been no need to make the plea for support. Also Paul makes it clear that “each of you should set aside and save something from your surplus” (1 Cor 16:2) showing that funds were not held in common.
    So it would seem that the socialism of the early church in Jerusalem was not a universal teaching, and did not end up very well. Nor is it really hard to see why.   Acts 4:34 goes on to describe that,
    none of them needed anything, because everyone who had land or houses would sell them and bring the money received for the things sold
    This is all well and good, but accumulating the money needed to buy land or a house takes considerable time. Selling such an assets can generate a lot of money, such that it is not surprising that at first “none of them needed anything.” But as is pretty clear to most, it is easier and takes less time to spend money than earn it. If the people were earning enough money to keep up with the need there would have been no reason to sell property in the first place.
    Since they did sell it, it means the need exceeded their incomes. Selling the property, and the resulting inflow of cash, fixed the short term issue, but it did not address the long term one, and thus it was only a matter of time until the money ran out again.   Yet this time, the property was already sold. With nothing else to sell, now they were all in poverty, and thus the appeals to the other churches for support. This is an inherent problem of socialism. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” It can produce short term gain by tapping into accumulated wealth but the gains are short lived.   In the end, as Winston Churchill pointed out, “The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”
    But even if one takes the early Jerusalem Church as a model to follow, there is still a very big and significant difference between the socialism of the early church in Jerusalem, and modern socialism. While the socialism of the early Jerusalem church “shared everything” the sharing was voluntary. This can be seen in Acts 5 and the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira. While they also sold some of their property and gave the money to the church, they secretly held back some of the money they received. The key point here is that they were not punished for holding back some of the money, but for lying about it. Note Peter’s response in Acts 5:3-4,
    “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you should lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back some of the money you got for the land? As long as it remained unsold, wasn’t it your own? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? So how could you have thought of doing what you did? You didn’t lie only to men, but also to God!”
     According to Peter, Ananias and Sapphira owned this property and could do with it as they saw fit. There was no obligation to give this money to the apostles. Their sin was to lie and say they gave all when they did not.
    Peter’s words are words the modern socialist cannot say. While those in the Jerusalem church would say, ‘what is mine is yours’, the modern socialist says ‘what is yours, is mine.’ The former is a statement of generosity, the latter is coveting. It may be disguised as concern for some need, but at its core it is seeing what someone else has, and wanting it for their own purposes.
    It is important to note that in the 10th commandment, there is no exception clause. It does not say do not covet unless you have a good reason. Where Peter could say “wasn’t it your own” the modern socialist say “give it to us or else.” The later just does not strike me as a very Christian message.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.