Austentious lifestyles of Christian and Jewish clergy tend to draw criticism. I rather welcome this pressure as it presents an opportunity for a purification process within those of us who profess faith in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
Christians and Jews who actually read their Scriptures … and believe the gist of these Scriptures … should welcome criticism.
One such criticism is posted at a blog ... Oneillexposed.wordpress.com ... including a post titled O’Neill’s Life Objectives and Lifestyle has not changed..!!
by kushykush on October 1, 2008.
Kush has posted some criticisms of a professing preacher/teacher of “Truth.” We should not assume these accusations are true. But, supposing these accusations have truth to them, they are a call to all preachers and teachers to examine their lifestyles in the light of their own holy book … and in the light of the Spirit they profess to believe … and see whether they are pure or are hypocritical to some degree.
Even a superficial reading of the Prophets and the Apostles’ writings shows that the God of the prophets and apostles claimed to be the one who raised up enemies against His own people to come against them, to accuse them, and to pillage their wealth… in order to humble them and cause them to become unhypocritical (and purified.)
“Assyria, the rod of My anger” comes to mind as an example. The deportation to Babylon is another example.
Jesus’ writings generally call for His preachers and teachers to lead a very austere lifestyle. Certainly there are lower standards for those who are mere parishoners or mere novices in the faith. But those who profess to be servants (slaves) of all mankind … which is what Jesus calls the ministers to be … should only possess the infrastructure which they use efficiently to serve mankind. I say this with reference to Kush’ accusation that minister O’Neill drives a Lincoln and has unjustifiable travel expenses.
Global society today, in 2008, is at a pivotal point in time in which entrenched Christian powers-that-be are being vehemently challenged on every front. Many strongholds of Jewish and Christian power are being successfully attacked. Personally I would like to welcome this purifying process. Judeo-Christian persons and institutions are adulterated and riddled with hypocrisy … as their own Scriptures have predicted. It is about time that, as it is written, “judgment begins from the house of God.” Yet, my expectation is that subsequent to a purification process within the professors of the Judeo-Christian faith there will be a judgment which will come upon those who have been the accusers and destroyers of the Judeo-Christian powers-that-be.
This reminds me of the accusations which occured historically in China when the Maoists were taking over. The history of the Little Flock church and the ministry of Watchman Nee has interesting anecdotes about this sort of thing. Nee lived a very circumspect life, yet the Maoists criticised heavily the fact that the church had a surplus of assets. Here is some reference to that story:http://www.xenos.org/essays/neeframe.htmWhile the article cited above goes into topics divergent from my own here, it gives a general picture of what went on then and which I think is going on now worldwide. The true believers in Jesus are having to become rather underground … as did the Chinese. The compromised Roman-Christian hybrid version of Judeo-Christianity will be destroyed as it is written in the book of the Revelation.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Christian Absolute Socialism - Commanded By God?
PREFACE
In this article I am addressing only my friends and brothers in Christ Jesus. We accept the Christian Scriptures as authoritative and also "reason together" with Jehovah Elohim using logic, looking to Jesus Who by the Holy Spirit can open Truth to us. We extensively use the patterns of God’s handiwork as basis for discussion of Truth. I am not planning to use this article to embarrass my friends who live in what they call "Christian community", but which I am calling a Christian absolute socialist system. All quotes will be from the Authorized Version (King James Version) unless otherwise stated. This is so that Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and its dictionary may be used easily for research.
EXPLANATION OF TITLE
The title requires explanation. I did not want to refer to "Christian community" since, in my view the word "community" is commonly understood to mean a broader category of groups (such as, “village”) than the communal group. I did not think the word "communism" was appropriate since that has connotations of Karl Marx’ system which is, emphatically not the subject at hand. I would have liked to use the word "communalism" because it expresses the characteristic of shared property in a group which has come together to share its wealth and working strength for the good of all. However, "socialism" seemed a bit more accurate because it emphasizes the role of government [in this case, church government] in supervising the communal process. I think that the word "authoritarian" is appropriate only because the communal system I wish to challenge has a government which professes to have total authority over all the money, tools, working strength and time of its members.
There have been utopians that believed that a communal system should equalize all people and give equal benefits to all. This is not the kind of system that I am addressing. Rather, I am describing a system in which stewardships are restructured by the administration of the leader who is granted - by the group - total authority to restructure or re-assign the stewardships over money, tools, and time. The leader’s administrative endeavor is not to equalize stewardships, but ideally to optimize results by assigning stewardships according to ability and specialty while meeting the basic needs for survival of each and every member. Potentially (or ideally) the goal of this communal system is the optimum nurture and exercise of each and every member toward maturity as Sons of God in Christ, both individually and corporately. The expression, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" does not describe the communal society in question. This is because "need" cannot be defined except, in a limited sense, as the basic needs for survival (yet even these are not necessarily the responsibility of the society since no society can guarantee the ongoing life of another who must pay the penalty for his/her deeds). What is being advocated, I believe, by the Christian absolute socialist movement, is the optimization of stewardships toward the greatest good for God and for God’s people. In short, they advocate Christian absolute socialism as the expression of Christ’s command that we should love one another as He has loved us.
NOT A QUESTION OF SALVATION
I am not challenging whether members of this movement possess the gift of life in Jesus. That is quite another issue. I am confident that salvation exists among members of these groups.
BENEFITS TO BE GAINED
There are benefits that may be sought and gained by the authoritarian socialist churches. These are truly benefits regardless of whether or not the communal system is decreed by God. The benefits of Christian absolute socialism include: 1) the benefit of protection of the young or weak from destructive influences, 2) the facilitation of financial and social comfort in time of need, 3) the benefit of close proximity to one another, 4) the benefit of facilitated administrative control over immature members by which destructive behavior is readily detected by administrators and may be easily corrected by the administrators for the instruction of the errant member as well as the benefit of the community.
WHAT SHOULD BE OUR STANDARD OF RIGHT AND WRONG?
What is to be our standard of right and wrong conduct for today? For those of us who believe in the incarnate God Jesus, Son of the Most High God, there is only one answer. We must uphold the principles upon which "the Law (of Moses)" was hung, namely "You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength" and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Essentially, deeds of love for someone are deeds which will cause the greatest benefit to the receiver. The Law of Moses helped to define for us what deeds will bring the greatest benefit to society. Yet, in our current environment, the definition of "love" is subtle and requires elaboration. The spirit of the Law of Moses, true and effective today even though the covenant of Sinai has been fulfilled and no longer is in effect, is hung upon the principle, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
In this current Age of Grace, the individual must subjectively judge the working out of the principle of love. God’s purpose in mercy, justice and grace is to lead us to repentance and righteousness, and, ultimately, to maturity as Sons of God. One must decide for himself whether he thinks that Christian totalitarian socialist structure effects the greatest growth-in righteousness for the all the members of the body of Christ.
CHRISTIAN AUTHORITARIAN SOCIALISM - COMMANDED BY GOD?
I can think of two approaches to answering the question. The two approaches are: 1) to examine those biblical quotes often used to advocate the radical commitment of persons to the cause of the communalism and 2) to examine the spirit of stewardship within the panorama of the path of progress planned by God as revealed in the Bible. That would involve primarily the stewardship of the spirit within, the soul garment, and the body garment (or vehicle of expression). Secondary in the hierarchy of stewardship are vocation, time, possessions, and money. Here let us examine literal Scriptures pertaining to the stewardship of property using continually as a backdrop the Bible-based concept of the spirit of stewardship as it applies first to spirit, soul, body, vocation, property, and money. It is this concept of stewardship that forms the spirit of the law, against the theory of Christian absolute socialism.
Since many readers who have assumed that the Book of Acts, chapters 2, 3, and 4 state plainly that Christian absolute socialism is the way of love for one another which Christ commanded us to live, let me state point blank that theirs is a false assumption. The actual Scriptures often cited by Christian communitarians emphatically do not advocate the absolute socialist form of community. That matter will be dealt with shortly.
JESUS AND THE TWELVE DISCIPLES
Jesus and His twelve all had one purse. The disciples had left houses and lands in order to follow Jesus. Is this a formula for Communal Christianity? I say "No" because these disciples were specifically being called into a ministry of teaching, prayer, and miracles. Jesus pointedly did not command the disciples did to combine their assets - all of their fishing equipment or houses - into any common vocational work.
Authoritarian Socialist Christianity advocates a common purse and endeavors to use this common purse for vocational interests. Such was neither modeled nor advocated by Jesus in His ministry and in His training of the disciples for ministry.
THE RICH YOUNG RULER
Jesus said unto him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me." (Matt.19: 21). Jesus asked the man to give what he possessed to the poor. Jesus did not ask that all be given to His ministry or the disciples. Jesus asked the man to follow Him, implying that he become involved in the school of the word, prayer, and miracles. Neither Jesus nor His disciples were involved in using assets to produce wealth; they did not want to become financial or business stewards over any of what the Rich Young Ruler had to give. The advocates of Christian absolute socialism quote Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler as a text to advocate their Christian absolute socialism. But that very text is in marked contrast to what the Christian absolute socialists are saying and doing. The Hutterite communities, for example, certainly do not sell all their collective possessions, distribute to the destitute, and come and be submitted solely to the direct leadership of Jesus to the individual. Rather, they collectivize these possessions, give them to themselves as a group, and submit rather absolutely to leadership that is not the equivalent of Jesus.
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Acts 2:44-46. New American Standard Version [NASV] "Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold (literally, ‘would sell’) their possessions and goods, and divided (literally, ‘distributed’) them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart…." "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart."
ANSWERING THE HUTTERITE PRINCIPLES
A particularly well-known and widespread example of Christian absolute socialism is Hutterite Society. I will use the Hutterite system in this article as the model for discussion because the nature of Hutterite communities has been well documented in books widely available. [HOSTETLER JOHN ANDREW, HUTTERITE SOCIETY published by J HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1974.]
“The Hutterites reject a purely ‘spiritual’ community which does not bring property under the control of the body of Christ. Community of goods … is the will of God, who from the beginning created all things for common use.” [Ibid., p.174]. “Material goods as well as capital earnings are for the welfare of the community and are clearly at its disposal. Every member ‘shall give and devote all his or her time, labor, services, earnings, and energies … [to] the community, freely, voluntarily and without compensation….’ [Reference to E. A. Fletcher, Constitution of Hutterian Brethren Church and Rules as to Community of Property (Winnipeg, Man., 1950)].
The basic design requires a contract or firm commitment on the part of the individual to give to a specific communal church absolutely all possessions, future income, time and working strength. This is accomplished by submitting these things to the Administrator or Administrators who are in charge of the communal church. Perhaps they would word it differently, such as they would say that they are giving these things to the Lord and to the church. I describe it here in terms of giving to the Administrator or Administrators in charge because this is the way the communal churches are administrated. The administrators receive all wealth, time, and strength yielded to their direction. They in turn delegate authority and stewardship or job assignments to others.
In this article I am addressing only my friends and brothers in Christ Jesus. We accept the Christian Scriptures as authoritative and also "reason together" with Jehovah Elohim using logic, looking to Jesus Who by the Holy Spirit can open Truth to us. We extensively use the patterns of God’s handiwork as basis for discussion of Truth. I am not planning to use this article to embarrass my friends who live in what they call "Christian community", but which I am calling a Christian absolute socialist system. All quotes will be from the Authorized Version (King James Version) unless otherwise stated. This is so that Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and its dictionary may be used easily for research.
EXPLANATION OF TITLE
The title requires explanation. I did not want to refer to "Christian community" since, in my view the word "community" is commonly understood to mean a broader category of groups (such as, “village”) than the communal group. I did not think the word "communism" was appropriate since that has connotations of Karl Marx’ system which is, emphatically not the subject at hand. I would have liked to use the word "communalism" because it expresses the characteristic of shared property in a group which has come together to share its wealth and working strength for the good of all. However, "socialism" seemed a bit more accurate because it emphasizes the role of government [in this case, church government] in supervising the communal process. I think that the word "authoritarian" is appropriate only because the communal system I wish to challenge has a government which professes to have total authority over all the money, tools, working strength and time of its members.
There have been utopians that believed that a communal system should equalize all people and give equal benefits to all. This is not the kind of system that I am addressing. Rather, I am describing a system in which stewardships are restructured by the administration of the leader who is granted - by the group - total authority to restructure or re-assign the stewardships over money, tools, and time. The leader’s administrative endeavor is not to equalize stewardships, but ideally to optimize results by assigning stewardships according to ability and specialty while meeting the basic needs for survival of each and every member. Potentially (or ideally) the goal of this communal system is the optimum nurture and exercise of each and every member toward maturity as Sons of God in Christ, both individually and corporately. The expression, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" does not describe the communal society in question. This is because "need" cannot be defined except, in a limited sense, as the basic needs for survival (yet even these are not necessarily the responsibility of the society since no society can guarantee the ongoing life of another who must pay the penalty for his/her deeds). What is being advocated, I believe, by the Christian absolute socialist movement, is the optimization of stewardships toward the greatest good for God and for God’s people. In short, they advocate Christian absolute socialism as the expression of Christ’s command that we should love one another as He has loved us.
NOT A QUESTION OF SALVATION
I am not challenging whether members of this movement possess the gift of life in Jesus. That is quite another issue. I am confident that salvation exists among members of these groups.
BENEFITS TO BE GAINED
There are benefits that may be sought and gained by the authoritarian socialist churches. These are truly benefits regardless of whether or not the communal system is decreed by God. The benefits of Christian absolute socialism include: 1) the benefit of protection of the young or weak from destructive influences, 2) the facilitation of financial and social comfort in time of need, 3) the benefit of close proximity to one another, 4) the benefit of facilitated administrative control over immature members by which destructive behavior is readily detected by administrators and may be easily corrected by the administrators for the instruction of the errant member as well as the benefit of the community.
WHAT SHOULD BE OUR STANDARD OF RIGHT AND WRONG?
What is to be our standard of right and wrong conduct for today? For those of us who believe in the incarnate God Jesus, Son of the Most High God, there is only one answer. We must uphold the principles upon which "the Law (of Moses)" was hung, namely "You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength" and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Essentially, deeds of love for someone are deeds which will cause the greatest benefit to the receiver. The Law of Moses helped to define for us what deeds will bring the greatest benefit to society. Yet, in our current environment, the definition of "love" is subtle and requires elaboration. The spirit of the Law of Moses, true and effective today even though the covenant of Sinai has been fulfilled and no longer is in effect, is hung upon the principle, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
In this current Age of Grace, the individual must subjectively judge the working out of the principle of love. God’s purpose in mercy, justice and grace is to lead us to repentance and righteousness, and, ultimately, to maturity as Sons of God. One must decide for himself whether he thinks that Christian totalitarian socialist structure effects the greatest growth-in righteousness for the all the members of the body of Christ.
CHRISTIAN AUTHORITARIAN SOCIALISM - COMMANDED BY GOD?
I can think of two approaches to answering the question. The two approaches are: 1) to examine those biblical quotes often used to advocate the radical commitment of persons to the cause of the communalism and 2) to examine the spirit of stewardship within the panorama of the path of progress planned by God as revealed in the Bible. That would involve primarily the stewardship of the spirit within, the soul garment, and the body garment (or vehicle of expression). Secondary in the hierarchy of stewardship are vocation, time, possessions, and money. Here let us examine literal Scriptures pertaining to the stewardship of property using continually as a backdrop the Bible-based concept of the spirit of stewardship as it applies first to spirit, soul, body, vocation, property, and money. It is this concept of stewardship that forms the spirit of the law, against the theory of Christian absolute socialism.
Since many readers who have assumed that the Book of Acts, chapters 2, 3, and 4 state plainly that Christian absolute socialism is the way of love for one another which Christ commanded us to live, let me state point blank that theirs is a false assumption. The actual Scriptures often cited by Christian communitarians emphatically do not advocate the absolute socialist form of community. That matter will be dealt with shortly.
JESUS AND THE TWELVE DISCIPLES
Jesus and His twelve all had one purse. The disciples had left houses and lands in order to follow Jesus. Is this a formula for Communal Christianity? I say "No" because these disciples were specifically being called into a ministry of teaching, prayer, and miracles. Jesus pointedly did not command the disciples did to combine their assets - all of their fishing equipment or houses - into any common vocational work.
Authoritarian Socialist Christianity advocates a common purse and endeavors to use this common purse for vocational interests. Such was neither modeled nor advocated by Jesus in His ministry and in His training of the disciples for ministry.
THE RICH YOUNG RULER
Jesus said unto him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me." (Matt.19: 21). Jesus asked the man to give what he possessed to the poor. Jesus did not ask that all be given to His ministry or the disciples. Jesus asked the man to follow Him, implying that he become involved in the school of the word, prayer, and miracles. Neither Jesus nor His disciples were involved in using assets to produce wealth; they did not want to become financial or business stewards over any of what the Rich Young Ruler had to give. The advocates of Christian absolute socialism quote Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler as a text to advocate their Christian absolute socialism. But that very text is in marked contrast to what the Christian absolute socialists are saying and doing. The Hutterite communities, for example, certainly do not sell all their collective possessions, distribute to the destitute, and come and be submitted solely to the direct leadership of Jesus to the individual. Rather, they collectivize these possessions, give them to themselves as a group, and submit rather absolutely to leadership that is not the equivalent of Jesus.
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Acts 2:44-46. New American Standard Version [NASV] "Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold (literally, ‘would sell’) their possessions and goods, and divided (literally, ‘distributed’) them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart…." "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart."
ANSWERING THE HUTTERITE PRINCIPLES
A particularly well-known and widespread example of Christian absolute socialism is Hutterite Society. I will use the Hutterite system in this article as the model for discussion because the nature of Hutterite communities has been well documented in books widely available. [HOSTETLER JOHN ANDREW, HUTTERITE SOCIETY published by J HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1974.]
“The Hutterites reject a purely ‘spiritual’ community which does not bring property under the control of the body of Christ. Community of goods … is the will of God, who from the beginning created all things for common use.” [Ibid., p.174]. “Material goods as well as capital earnings are for the welfare of the community and are clearly at its disposal. Every member ‘shall give and devote all his or her time, labor, services, earnings, and energies … [to] the community, freely, voluntarily and without compensation….’ [Reference to E. A. Fletcher, Constitution of Hutterian Brethren Church and Rules as to Community of Property (Winnipeg, Man., 1950)].
The basic design requires a contract or firm commitment on the part of the individual to give to a specific communal church absolutely all possessions, future income, time and working strength. This is accomplished by submitting these things to the Administrator or Administrators who are in charge of the communal church. Perhaps they would word it differently, such as they would say that they are giving these things to the Lord and to the church. I describe it here in terms of giving to the Administrator or Administrators in charge because this is the way the communal churches are administrated. The administrators receive all wealth, time, and strength yielded to their direction. They in turn delegate authority and stewardship or job assignments to others.
I will not address the subject of the governance of Hutterite Society except to point out its general characteristics. In Hutterite Society, the power of leaders is tempered by several important factors. “A council … headed by the first preacher, is elected to serve as an executive body.” There is a division of stewardship among the council. “The head preacher has the highest leadership position, but his actions are constantly subject to review by the counsel. Authority is thus group-centered.” [Ibid., p.162]
As interestingly healthy as the governmental structure may be, I challenge the Hutterite assumptions concerning the “communal” – what I term “absolute socialist” – economics of the society rather than the governmental body itself. So we will return to the question of whether God decrees a community of goods as the highest command of love.
The economic ideals for which the Hutterites strive may be described in one of their foundational books by Andreas Ehrenpreis. I think it may be appropriate to examine some of the major statements by brother Ehrenpreis and to answer them respectfully. References will be from pages 59 – 63 of "Brotherly Community the Highest Command of Love", by Andreas Ehrenpreis 1650. And pages 123-124 of the same book in the writing by Claus Felbinger, 1560.
"But community, perfect unity, and separation from the world are to be found only in the perfect Kingdom of Christ. We know that Christ has called out all those whom He appointed to have eternal life. With His death He sealed the New Covenant given by God in His mercy and won from His Father the promised Spirit, who shall lead all true believers into the truth. It is this Spirit who taught them the way of community, of which we read in the first five chapters of the Acts of the Apostles [Acts 2, 4, 5]: all who believed were together and had all things in common; and no one said that any of the things he possessed was his own. Those who possessed land or houses sold them and brought the proceeds and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. “–Claus Felbinger.
It is the assumption involved in the latter two sentences above which I wish to address. Brother Felbinger assumes that in Acts 2 and 4, as in Acts 5 that proceeds were always laid at the apostles’ feet and that distribution was made by the apostles. Yet in Acts chapter 2, the text seems to describe individuals selling things and parting the proceeds to all. Acts 2:44-46 expressly states, "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart."
HOW DID THE EARLY CHURCH SHARE?
In the text of Acts 2:44-45 the apostles are not mentioned. It is the believers who had all in common without having an authoritarian institution in place to govern their flow of capital. I have checked the Greek words, by means of Strong's Concordance and Dictionary. And, evidently, the King James Version correctly translates these verses. If the words in Acts 2:44-46 say what they mean, then it was the believers themselves who parted them to all as every man had need. Notice that final phrase "as every man had need." It does not say that they sold anything when there was no need. And it does not say that they distributed any proceeds to persons who had no need. It is evident that there was no formal contract concerning the yielding of all properties and vocational resources to the apostles. Furthermore, it is apparent that the believers administrated the sharing process directly to those in need.
In fact the latter verse, 46, says that they ate "from house to house." Quite probably, the houses were the personal property of believers. This helps bring to mind the important point that the "held all in common" phenomenon was most certainly not a legally organized event but was an attitude of the heart.
Hutterites and other communitarians seem to assume that this phrase, "held all things in common" was historically and ought to currently be an organized contractual arrangement similar to what occurs in communal organizations such as the Hutterian Brothers. The Scriptures themselves demonstrate that "holding all things common" was effected neither by the selling of property, nor by the surrender of authority to the apostles, but by the individual stewardship from the heart at the time of need.
"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things common." [Acts 4:32]
If our translations are right, Acts 4:32 states plainly that these believers had possessions. That is, they were owners of properties. By the time referred to in Acts chapter 4, an unspecified time has passed since Acts 2. There had been time to collectivize the property into the hands of apostles or other chief stewards. Yet, they that believed possessed houses and things while saying that these were all common.
It is the attitude toward possessions which is undeniably one of having them "common". What is "common?" In the Greek, it is koinos. In this context, the meaning of it is "shared among all." When understood as an attitude rather than an instituted economic system, this commonality of property was actually still lived out in the context of individual possession of property. Observe the actual wording of the Scriptures, "And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold. And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet." [Acts 4:33-37].
There is new selling. Is this only by new believers who are joining the commune? Perhaps not “all” property was held in common literally in the earlier period described in chapter 2.
By the time of Acts chapter 4, the church is seeing the apostles brought into the financial administrative process. People placed proceeds of sales “… at the apostles’ feet.” [Acts 4:35] This may have been months, or it may have been more than a year after the original Pentecost experience. This particular event required the apostles to administrate the distribution of the money to the needy ones, whereas, previous references to distribution did not specify that it was done by the apostles. This particular flow of money could have been pragmatic when the apostles were aware of needs which they could meet administratively. Isolated needs could yet be being met by "good neighbors" while a body of widows and otherwise destitute ones were on a "dole" which had become institutionalized. If the apostles were to make a special announcement that there existed a need for a contribution, this would have led a generous brother, such as Barnabas, to sell a possession which was still his possession, and bring it to the apostles rather than he himself distributing the proceeds.
Ananias and Saphira seem to have seen this very public demonstration of generosity as an opportunity for vainglorious giving. They lied to the church and the Holy Spirit. The apostle said “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?” [Acts 5:4].
Now in Acts Chapter 4 we have the introduction of the apostle’s administration of funds. Acts Chapter 4 says that those who sold possessions laid the proceeds at the apostles' feet. And that the apostles made the distribution to those in need. If we are justified in understanding this as an evolution of the sharing process into being one administrated by the apostles, we may speculate that this administration occurred because of pragmatism. Perhaps the Apostles were the ones in position to know of needy persons. Even if we had similarly qualified apostles, should not take this example of pragmatic improvisation to be a law for our own form of church government in every age and every situation? Acts 4:33 “And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid [them] down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, [and] of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold [it], and brought the money, and laid [it] at the apostles’ feet. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid [them] down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. Acts 5:4. King James Version "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." Probably, Barnabas’ sale of property was occasioned by a need that arose some number of years after Pentecost. Does it not seem obvious that believers still owned their own properties for a rather long time subsequent to when they began to have an attitude of considering all their possessions as common?
CONCERNING THE WORD “ALL” IN SCRIPTURE
Scripture says they held "all" in common. The Scriptural use of the word "all" is as a figure of speech. For instance, in Exodus 9:6 "all the cattle of Egypt died." Yet, in Exodus 9:20, the Egyptians still had cattle. "He that feared the word of the LORD among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses: 21 And he that regarded not the word of the LORD left his servants and his cattle in the field. "Therefore expressions in Acts 2 and 4 which say "every one who had possessions sold them" or they had "all things common" are figures of speech.
EVEN IF THEY DID IT IN THE EARLY CHURCH WOULD IT BE, THEREFORE A PRINCIPLE FOR US?
We see a generally pragmatic spirit in the early church, in which people apparently did what they assumed was the right thing without bothering to seek guidance. For example the appointment of deacons in order to make church administration more efficient and to release the apostles to do more ministering in teaching and prayer. The Scripture does not say that these decisions were to become Law for us. Indeed, even in their own time, these decisions may, for all we know, have been in some degree of error. The Apostles were not above being corrected and learning knew standards of conduct years after their Pentecost experience. As, for example, the Apostle Peter was inclined to be prejudiced against the Gentiles and even made a glaring error recorded in Scripture concerning prejudicial behavior.
COMMON PURSE NOT ALWAYS GOOD
Proverbs says "My son, if sinners entice you, do not consent. If they say, come, let us lie in wait for blood, we will find precious spoil, we shall all have one purse. My son, do not walk in the way with them…." By this example we see that "having all in common" or having all in one purse is not necessarily a good thing. And, even if it is, in one instance, a relatively good thing, it may well not be the best thing. The key factor is whether the spirit of the group, the leadership of the group is good, and the deeds of the group are good. If the leaders and the group are inherently good, then a benefit may result from having one purse. Yet the benefit may not be as good a benefit as may result from the members of the group maintaining separate purses and separate property to the extent that these individuals are given wisdom from above as to the use of their properties.
THE KINGDOM OF "BABYLON" AND THE KINGDOM OF MESSIAH GOD
If Christian communalism is not the way decreed by God, then what is? Are we not commanded to “come out of Babylon”?
Jesus ("Messiah God") established the kingdom of God in the hearts of those who became lifted up and inspired by holy spirit and were surgically, by the holy spirit, implanted in their hearts with the flesh-seed of Jesus. The kingdom of "Babylon" is essentially the same Roman world system into which Jesus was born, which He marvelously overcame, and which is being overcome by any and all of us who follow Jesus. The king of "Babylon" is his majesty Lucifer. I do not say this in jest or disrespect. When I use the words "his majesty" I am referring to the great intelligence and important status of Lucifer who is the mightiest of the rebellious children of God. Moreover, these are the two great kings: Jesus and Lucifer. We humans must choose which king we will serve here and now, today. Every new moment that God grants breathe to you or to me is another great opportunity for you or me to choose Jesus or Lucifer for one moment.
We are called to be “in the world but not of the world.”
“I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” [John 17:14-17]
The kingdom of Messiah God is being founded in the hearts of any and all that turn toward Him as a response to His voice. His voice operates upon the hearts of mankind through circumstances, through the Holy Scriptures, and through the observable created systems of God which exemplify His words to us. The kingdom of Messiah God is growing from within those individuals who are being transformed by the spirit & flesh & blood of Jesus and by the working (in the individual hearts) of the Holy Spirit messenger sent by Jesus. All the humanly observable major centers of power today are essentially the Roman system. (See writings of Prophet Daniel in which Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue is described.) The centers of power and influence in this age are emphatically not being turned, at this time, into the kingdom of Messiah God. The centers of power and influence include the "religious, political, and financial" systems known today. Some of these centers of power are certainly more influenced by good than are others, but all owe allegiance to Lucifer. The system in the United States of America, for instance, is not, and has never been a truly Christian system, but is a Roman/Babylonish system with some Christian influence. When, in the future, the system requires us to take the literal “mark of the Beast”, then we will be called to literally come out of the financial system which will be established at that time. [Revelation 13:17].
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God. .” [Romans 13:1] At this time, we owe submission, not only to Jesus but to the powers that be (with this stipulation, that IF the powers that be command us to do something against what the Holy Spirit expressly commands us at this hour then we are to disobey the powers that be.) However, we are not to attempt to "come out of Babylon" by removing ourselves from the national legal boundaries of the existing nations, or the existing religions, or the existing financial systems. Rather, we are to progressively come out of Babylon by responding to the Holy Spirit as it imparts to our hearts the flesh and blood of Messiah God and as it joins with us in reordering our inner thoughts (mind and heart.) The High Priest of Jesus’ day spoke, prophetically, to another Priest "You are benefiting nothing. Lo! The world came away after him." The whole inner world of the individual overcomer of this world is transformed progressively if and when the individual daily renounces self-centered life and follows the Holy Spirit as it progressively transforms the governments of the human mind, heart, and body in the likeness and image of Jesus-Messiah-God.
The process of living “in the world but not of the world” is best accomplished outside of communal organizations. It is best accomplished with a degree of personal property within the boundaries of the current Babylonish systems.
THE INDIVIDUAL
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness. They shall be filled." It is good to have "the righteousness through faith in Jesus" which saves a person from doing time in the prison of the Grave as well as the fire of the Trash-heap. Fear not man who can kill the body, but afterward can do nothing. Rather, FEAR HIM who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna (the burning trash-heap.) We must begin we salvation in Jesus. Yet we do not stop at the door of entrance into life in Messiah.
God our Father calls us to hunger for more or the process and product of obeying His voice. We are called to be stewards. We are called to serve the younger. We are called to administrate justice and mercy to anyone under our care in family, workplace, and government (including church.) Maybe you do not think that you are an administrator. However, whenever you speak you administrate to the hearer truth or falsehood, kindness or unkindness, justice or injustice. We will be judged for every word we speak. That is, we must account to a higher authority for all of our stewardships, even the stewardship over words. Cain said, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" Yet, we should say to Cain that he is called by God to protect, and preserve his brother. We are called to sanctify ourselves for others. Primarily our stewardship is over that which is INSIDE us: Our thoughts, words, and emotions.
Secondarily, we may, at times, have money, vocational talents, property, and spiritually imparted gifts that may be used to help others.
STEARDSHIPS WITHIN THE FAMILY OF GOD
How to administrate society? Appointed leaders who re-allocate resources are, as Scripture and historical experience tell us, ordained in every age by God. Yet, (1) should this re-allocation of resources be (a) a leveling of all resources [even distribution] (b) allocation to each according to his need, or (c) allocation to each according to his ability as steward? And furthermore, (2) to what degree is this re-allocation to be done? (a) the existing administrators capable of most effectively administrating and delegating authority in kingly fashion, or (b) in the fashion of a republic or (c) something else? [Whether the administrative reallocation of stewardships is ordained of God for any leader or for specific leaders having specific credentials.]
AUTHORITARIAN EXTREMES
It has been said by one Christian communal movement, with reference to their authority structure, that "the kingdom of God is not a democracy." That understates the problem, for while we readily admit that the Bible, as a constitution of a people, does not advocate a democracy, yet the Bible certainly does not advocate a totalitarian authoritarian regime in the hands of mortal men. The Law given at mount Sinai commanded the election of judges who would rule in matters which were publically disputed. The Lord told them not to appoint a king... for they had one king, Yahweh.
For an extreme example of authoritarian misuse of the Bible, there have been leaders (not Hutterites) who interpret Matthew 23:1-3 to say that the members of church should obey the pastor in all matters concerning even finance, time, labor, and whatever.
"Matthew 23:1-3 1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."
Have they ever thought about what Moses did on the judgment seat referenced by the Lord? Moses judged disputed cases of ethics and morals. Moses did not make himself king and he did not make himself or any delegated judge lord of all finance and labor of all the people. (Exodus 18:16-13, 25-26).
MISLEADING MOVEMENTS
It has been said by one Christian communal movement, with reference to their authority structure, that "the kingdom of God is not a democracy." That understates the problem, for while we readily admit that the Bible, as a constitution of a people, does not advocate a democracy, yet the Bible certainly does not advocate a totalitarian authoritarian regime in the hands of mortal men. The Law given at mount Sinai commanded the election of judges who would rule in matters which were publically disputed. The Lord told them not to appoint a king... for they had one king, Yahweh.
For an extreme example of authoritarian misuse of the Bible, there have been leaders (not Hutterites) who interpret Matthew 23:1-3 to say that the members of church should obey the pastor in all matters concerning even finance, time, labor, and whatever.
"Matthew 23:1-3 1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."
Have they ever thought about what Moses did on the judgment seat referenced by the Lord? Moses judged disputed cases of ethics and morals. Moses did not make himself king and he did not make himself or any delegated judge lord of all finance and labor of all the people. (Exodus 18:16-13, 25-26).
MISLEADING MOVEMENTS
Jesus said that weeds would be sown among the wheat. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. Matthew 13:24-26 . Some versions of the Bible refer to them as the tares. It is a certain kind of weed which looks alot like wheat until it is mature. At the harvest, the Lord said, the tares will be separated from the wheat so that the wheat can be gathered into the Lord's barn.
It is not for us to campaign hard to eradicate errors from the midst of Christian movements. It is our task to try to sort our for ourselves what is right [Luke 12:57 "Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?"]
Jesus said that false prophets would arise. (Matthew 24:11). A false prophet, in this age, is not necessarily a non-Christian. We may have many Christian teachers who teach some false teaching along with the true teaching. This makes them false prophets when compared to Jesus. In Matthew 24:5 Jesus says, "Many will come in My name saying, 'I am Christ'." Yet, has the Greek really been translated correctly there? Are the many false teachers not also including those who do indeed come in His name (they are truly Christians) and they do say that He is Christ, yet they add false teachings to the Christian teachings? Since the punctuation does not occur in the Greek, it has been the interpretation of the translators which has assumed that the false ones referred to in verse 5 do indeed say that they themselves are Christ. Yet, without the added punctuation, the Greek passage may just as well be rendered, "Many will come in My name, saying [that] I [Jesus] am Christ, and [yet] shall be deceiving many." This rendering is what I consider most likely. Moreover, Jesus wanted to warn us that serious deceptions would come from those who are Christians (in His name) and do acknowledge that He is the Christ.
If these deceptions were not coming from Christian ministers how would it be almost possible to deceive even the very elect? (Matt. 24:24). False Jewish prophets of the pre-Messianic era were participating in the religion of the covenant of that day else they would not have received a hearing. The prophet Hananiah was a Jew who came to the people in the name of Jehovah their God. Hananiah did not deny the Holy Scriptures or the basic reverence for Jehovah God. Yet, Hananiah prophesied falsely that the bondage in Babylon would be ended within two years of his prophecy.
Hananiah said it would be two years but Jeremiah said it would be seventy years! Jesus said, "He who endures to the end shall be saved." The "70" and the endurance to the end are parallel symbols of the inner maturity to which Jesus wants to lead each of us by the Holy Spirit before we can be delivered from Babylon. We are to be “in the system but not of the system.”
The maturation process includes the cutting out of a stone without hands. [Daniel 2:43-45] That stone is the kingdom of God. The hand of mortal man is not to be involved in the sanctification of that “stone” which will crush the current world system. There is no simple joining of a "Community" which is going to transfer anyone out of Babylon into the Kingdom of God. Those teachers who have taught that Christians were progressing out of Babylon by joining "Christian Community" were false to the degree that they taught these false ideas. And, it has been a teaching which, if it were possible, would deceive the very elect.
It is a teaching which hinders the maturation of those who will become the very elect Bride (symbolized by the "70 years" in Babylon) of Jesus Christ. To some degree, these teachers of "Community" have partaken of the false teachers characteristics noted by Apostle Paul in II Timothy 2:26 in that they "lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts." They convince Christians to join Christian Community by offering an attempt at freedom from the Christians' confused guilt feelings concerning covetousness, selfishness, and rebelliousness-against-authority. The joining of a commune is tempting because it has the appearance of a radical change away from these vices of the heart. However, the Kingdom of God does not come by appearances. The kingdom is a progressive changing in the heart. Love of one another is expressed best by those who are stewards over talents that they delight to use for others. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the best ones at directing the individual follower of Jesus in how to use his/her talents.
In Revelation 18, the call to come out of Babylon does not go out until approximately the very end. Jeremiah 29:4-6 etc., describe how the Lord would have us dwell within the system of Babylon today until the Holy Spirit calls us to come out of Babylon physically. Do not be deceived by the false prophets who promise that Christian Community is your step out of Babylon.
Dr. Schoon on the Financial Crisis
Bringing this over from my old blog which was hypomarx@gmail.com
from Wednesday, December 5, 2007
An interesting article from Darrell Robert Schoon. I do not agree with all he says. I do know that we in the USA live under a fractional reserve debt capitalist system which is like saying we live under Pharaoh in Egypt. I certainly do not think that free markets are a panacea. I am certainly not a libertarian or anarchist.
yours truly, Hypo Marx
http://www.drschoon.com/The stock market surged upwards upon hearing the US Federal Reserve may cut interest rates to save the economy. This is tantamount to heroin addicts rejoicing their morphine will be increased because doctors are concerned about their rapidly failing health.Recently, Bloomberg News noted:"U.S. Stocks Rally for Second Day; Citigroup, Google Shares GainBy Elizabeth StantonNov. 28 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks staged the biggest two- day rally in four years, led by financial shares, after Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn reinforced expectations for another interest rate cut. "The record 331 point gain in the Dow reinforced the fact that the fundamental driver of today’s markets is not productivity, profitability, or growth but rather the availability of cheap credit.Prices depend on buyers and when buyers depend on credit and credit becomes dear, prices collapse.page 3, How To Survive The Crisis And Prosper In The Process. Since August, central banks have been pouring credit into financial markets in Asia, Europe and the US in the hopes of containing a credit contraction that is threatening the stability of capital flows and global finance. It is not working. The current credit contraction is the beginning of the end of credit-based capital markets as we know them. ALL MANAGED MARKETS COLLAPSE. COMMUNIST MARKETS COLLAPSE SOONER CAPITALIST MARKETS COLLAPSE LATER. In August as credit markets were beginning to fail, I spoke at Professor Antal E.Fekete’s Gold Standard University Live (http://www.professorfekete.com/gsul.asp) in Szombathely, Hungary. In my speech (available at http://www.drschoon.com/media.asp), I pointed out that capitalist and communist markets are not free markets—both are managed and both are destined to collapse. Communist and capitalist markets, while fundamentally different, are both managed markets—though for different ends and in very different ways. Communist markets are managed by governments setting production goals and price controls. Capital markets are managed by central banks issuing credit in the form of debt, thereby indebting producers, savers, and governments with unsustainable levels of debt—which is where we are today. WHAT WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT HISTORY EXPLAINS IT. Capitalism, sic credit-based economies, first appeared in England in 1694 when King William III chartered the Bank of England, the world’s first central bank. The legal issuance of credit-based money by private bankers via a central bank enabled England to dominate global commerce and world power for the next 200 years.But by 1900, even the spoils of imperialism could no longer pay for England’s mounting debts and expenditures. In the 1870s, increasing military costs combined with a negative balance of trade began to drain England’s treasury of its gold and England’s reign as a world power was over. England was then succeeded by the United States whose economy, at the time, was savings-based, not debt-based. However, in 1913, this changed. In 1913, private bankers accomplished in the US what they had previously achieved in England—the creation of debt-based money by a central bank and the implementation of a national income tax now necessary to pay for America’s increasing debts. Mike Hewitt’s revealing article on this subject, America’s Forgotten War Against Central Banks, is a must-read and is available at http://www.dollardaze.org/blog/?post_id=00255."
from Wednesday, December 5, 2007
An interesting article from Darrell Robert Schoon. I do not agree with all he says. I do know that we in the USA live under a fractional reserve debt capitalist system which is like saying we live under Pharaoh in Egypt. I certainly do not think that free markets are a panacea. I am certainly not a libertarian or anarchist.
yours truly, Hypo Marx
http://www.drschoon.com/The stock market surged upwards upon hearing the US Federal Reserve may cut interest rates to save the economy. This is tantamount to heroin addicts rejoicing their morphine will be increased because doctors are concerned about their rapidly failing health.Recently, Bloomberg News noted:"U.S. Stocks Rally for Second Day; Citigroup, Google Shares GainBy Elizabeth StantonNov. 28 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks staged the biggest two- day rally in four years, led by financial shares, after Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn reinforced expectations for another interest rate cut. "The record 331 point gain in the Dow reinforced the fact that the fundamental driver of today’s markets is not productivity, profitability, or growth but rather the availability of cheap credit.Prices depend on buyers and when buyers depend on credit and credit becomes dear, prices collapse.page 3, How To Survive The Crisis And Prosper In The Process. Since August, central banks have been pouring credit into financial markets in Asia, Europe and the US in the hopes of containing a credit contraction that is threatening the stability of capital flows and global finance. It is not working. The current credit contraction is the beginning of the end of credit-based capital markets as we know them. ALL MANAGED MARKETS COLLAPSE. COMMUNIST MARKETS COLLAPSE SOONER CAPITALIST MARKETS COLLAPSE LATER. In August as credit markets were beginning to fail, I spoke at Professor Antal E.Fekete’s Gold Standard University Live (http://www.professorfekete.com/gsul.asp) in Szombathely, Hungary. In my speech (available at http://www.drschoon.com/media.asp), I pointed out that capitalist and communist markets are not free markets—both are managed and both are destined to collapse. Communist and capitalist markets, while fundamentally different, are both managed markets—though for different ends and in very different ways. Communist markets are managed by governments setting production goals and price controls. Capital markets are managed by central banks issuing credit in the form of debt, thereby indebting producers, savers, and governments with unsustainable levels of debt—which is where we are today. WHAT WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT HISTORY EXPLAINS IT. Capitalism, sic credit-based economies, first appeared in England in 1694 when King William III chartered the Bank of England, the world’s first central bank. The legal issuance of credit-based money by private bankers via a central bank enabled England to dominate global commerce and world power for the next 200 years.But by 1900, even the spoils of imperialism could no longer pay for England’s mounting debts and expenditures. In the 1870s, increasing military costs combined with a negative balance of trade began to drain England’s treasury of its gold and England’s reign as a world power was over. England was then succeeded by the United States whose economy, at the time, was savings-based, not debt-based. However, in 1913, this changed. In 1913, private bankers accomplished in the US what they had previously achieved in England—the creation of debt-based money by a central bank and the implementation of a national income tax now necessary to pay for America’s increasing debts. Mike Hewitt’s revealing article on this subject, America’s Forgotten War Against Central Banks, is a must-read and is available at http://www.dollardaze.org/blog/?post_id=00255."
Stewardship Within Socialist and Capitalist Contexts
Is it not true that, under the current spiritual configuration (with Lucifer still in power in the heavenlies) that capitalism and socialism essentially operate by the same principles? That is, "To him who has [and produces increase] will more be given." Which is to say that, a capitalist produces dividends with his own money and is, thereby, further empowered to either spend it on himself or to use his power to invest in more things which may produce dividends. Socialism, in these terms, is essentially the appointment of individuals who produce dividends for the organization (whether a "corporation" or a "government" - it makes only superficial difference). A wise socialist or corporate organization would promote individuals who produce dividends faithfully over the long-term for the organization.
If this above terminology is correct, then the essential problem in today’s society is emphatically not that it is capitalist or socialist, but that the powers that be are subordinate to Lucifer who is not rewarding according to merit but according to his self-destructive agenda. under Lucifer, the current capitalist fears the loss of his capital if he should begin to serve Jehovah to a greater degree than previous. Lucifer effects this confiscation of capital by spiritual means, as he did in the story of Job. Were Jehovah to take command tomorrow, the appointments of stewards would be based upon merit as to which would produce best dividends as perceived by Jehovah and His administrators.
In a divine socialist society, promotion of stewards should be according to the saying, "to him who has will more be given." A steward who earns good dividends while managing a facility could be promoted to managing twice as many people and/or twice as many physical resources. If the steward is not self indulgent, he requires no more salary than he did previous to his promotion, for, he is "not in it for the money."
God would take away actual coins from the steward [so to speak] based on the performance of the steward. A god-fearing capitalist would have an increase in money and this would be the equivalent to a promotion in the socialist society. Yet this money is always "on loan" from Jehovah who could remove it from the steward suddenly whenever the steward is self-oriented to a degree outside the standards of that time and place.
The amplified explanation as to why today’s capitalism is essentially the same as socialism is contained in this. Since administration is either "government" or "corporation", one who has money as the means by which he may hire others under him (incorporation). One who has socialist administrative authority has, similarly, the means by which he may hire or fire others under his jurisdiction (government). Even a "self-employed" capitalist who has only one "employee" is actually hiring and firing people when he chooses to do business with someone, say to repair his car or be his insurance agent.
If this above model/terminology-system is correct, then, is it true that the rich young ruler who was told to sell all in his hand and give to the poor and to have treasure in heaven and to come be following Jesus was simply being told that, in Jehovah’s estimation, he was not qualified to be steward over that quantity of power at that time? That, the man needed to learn first things first so that he could become, later, again steward over large amounts of responsibility. In other words, the rich man was not in error by mere fact of possessing stewardship over money, but was in error by maintaining stewardship which was 1) Lucifer-granted rather than Jehovah-granted, 2) In excess of what the man was capable of optimally managing. That is, this particular rich man did not use the dividends for the long-term good of the children of God, but indulged the dividends, somehow, upon himself. In contrast, a rich (or highly placed administrator) in God’s kingdom is someone who yields all dividends and increase of whatever kind to Jehovah so as to serve the best long-term good of all.
Therefore, similarly in a divine socialistic administration, an individual who is in a position of authority may be asked by a higher administrator to "step down" so as to further the good of the society. This would be the socialist equivalent of the statement by Jesus addressed to the rich young ruler.
Moreover, the essence of the command of the Lord is not that possessing money or power are wrong but only that the times and seasons are in the Lord’s hands and He knows how to optimize the administrative stewardships. The proverb is in not true which says that "power corrupts". IF the above model or terminology-system is correct, how do we construe the word of the Lord which says, "You cannot serve God and mammon." Tentatively I suppose that the term "mammon", in this context, refers to the serving of wealth as an end apart from God, or, more to the point, in this Lucifer-led age, mammon is certainly granted more to those loyal to Lucifer rather than to Jehovah, yet from the beginning it was not so. In this age, mammon is concurrent with the serving of appearances rather than realities. In ages governed by the Lord, mammon and other forms of power are only permitted to accumulate in the hands of the righteous. Yet, if one possesses wealth (which is mammon) then if one truly were to subordinate it to Jehovah, then it would not be one’s "master" and there would be no conflict of interest.
Power "corrupts" only because we have been accustomed to rebelling against Jehovah and His righteousness. Therefore, we should limit ourselves as to how much power we allow ourselves to possess. Government which has plurality and has "checks and balances" is necessary while we are still fallible human beings.
If this above terminology is correct, then the essential problem in today’s society is emphatically not that it is capitalist or socialist, but that the powers that be are subordinate to Lucifer who is not rewarding according to merit but according to his self-destructive agenda. under Lucifer, the current capitalist fears the loss of his capital if he should begin to serve Jehovah to a greater degree than previous. Lucifer effects this confiscation of capital by spiritual means, as he did in the story of Job. Were Jehovah to take command tomorrow, the appointments of stewards would be based upon merit as to which would produce best dividends as perceived by Jehovah and His administrators.
In a divine socialist society, promotion of stewards should be according to the saying, "to him who has will more be given." A steward who earns good dividends while managing a facility could be promoted to managing twice as many people and/or twice as many physical resources. If the steward is not self indulgent, he requires no more salary than he did previous to his promotion, for, he is "not in it for the money."
God would take away actual coins from the steward [so to speak] based on the performance of the steward. A god-fearing capitalist would have an increase in money and this would be the equivalent to a promotion in the socialist society. Yet this money is always "on loan" from Jehovah who could remove it from the steward suddenly whenever the steward is self-oriented to a degree outside the standards of that time and place.
The amplified explanation as to why today’s capitalism is essentially the same as socialism is contained in this. Since administration is either "government" or "corporation", one who has money as the means by which he may hire others under him (incorporation). One who has socialist administrative authority has, similarly, the means by which he may hire or fire others under his jurisdiction (government). Even a "self-employed" capitalist who has only one "employee" is actually hiring and firing people when he chooses to do business with someone, say to repair his car or be his insurance agent.
If this above model/terminology-system is correct, then, is it true that the rich young ruler who was told to sell all in his hand and give to the poor and to have treasure in heaven and to come be following Jesus was simply being told that, in Jehovah’s estimation, he was not qualified to be steward over that quantity of power at that time? That, the man needed to learn first things first so that he could become, later, again steward over large amounts of responsibility. In other words, the rich man was not in error by mere fact of possessing stewardship over money, but was in error by maintaining stewardship which was 1) Lucifer-granted rather than Jehovah-granted, 2) In excess of what the man was capable of optimally managing. That is, this particular rich man did not use the dividends for the long-term good of the children of God, but indulged the dividends, somehow, upon himself. In contrast, a rich (or highly placed administrator) in God’s kingdom is someone who yields all dividends and increase of whatever kind to Jehovah so as to serve the best long-term good of all.
Therefore, similarly in a divine socialistic administration, an individual who is in a position of authority may be asked by a higher administrator to "step down" so as to further the good of the society. This would be the socialist equivalent of the statement by Jesus addressed to the rich young ruler.
Moreover, the essence of the command of the Lord is not that possessing money or power are wrong but only that the times and seasons are in the Lord’s hands and He knows how to optimize the administrative stewardships. The proverb is in not true which says that "power corrupts". IF the above model or terminology-system is correct, how do we construe the word of the Lord which says, "You cannot serve God and mammon." Tentatively I suppose that the term "mammon", in this context, refers to the serving of wealth as an end apart from God, or, more to the point, in this Lucifer-led age, mammon is certainly granted more to those loyal to Lucifer rather than to Jehovah, yet from the beginning it was not so. In this age, mammon is concurrent with the serving of appearances rather than realities. In ages governed by the Lord, mammon and other forms of power are only permitted to accumulate in the hands of the righteous. Yet, if one possesses wealth (which is mammon) then if one truly were to subordinate it to Jehovah, then it would not be one’s "master" and there would be no conflict of interest.
Power "corrupts" only because we have been accustomed to rebelling against Jehovah and His righteousness. Therefore, we should limit ourselves as to how much power we allow ourselves to possess. Government which has plurality and has "checks and balances" is necessary while we are still fallible human beings.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
American Capitalism's Judgment Day
Finally it has arrived... the beginning of Judgment Day for American/European Capitalism.
But this is a blog by a Christian... probably an Evangelical. Aren't they supposed to be all in favor of this so-called free market capitalism which great Christian capitalists have believed in and accepted as their proof of divine approval?
This blog author... yours truly, Hypo... believes that traditional Christianity is largely adulterated. That includes the big power-broker-Christianity of Henry Ford, George W. Bush, and all that. A pure, unadulterated form of Christianity would be in tune with the gist of the Holy Hebrew Scriptures and New Covenant Scriptures.
The Scriptures advocate:
But this is a blog by a Christian... probably an Evangelical. Aren't they supposed to be all in favor of this so-called free market capitalism which great Christian capitalists have believed in and accepted as their proof of divine approval?
This blog author... yours truly, Hypo... believes that traditional Christianity is largely adulterated. That includes the big power-broker-Christianity of Henry Ford, George W. Bush, and all that. A pure, unadulterated form of Christianity would be in tune with the gist of the Holy Hebrew Scriptures and New Covenant Scriptures.
The Scriptures advocate:
- seven-year cycle of forgiveness of all debt.
- fifty-year cycle of restoration of land ownership to all citizens.
- no loaning of money on interest.
- no slavery.
- caring for the poor so that all basic needs are met (this may be construed perhaps as some basic universal health-care).
Any questions?
Wars and Competition Between Nations
United States is seeing tremendous humiliation. We expect this to continue. We even expect Russia to take over the International Space Station and to have the upper hand in the middle east.
In ancient times, the God of Israel used Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Greece and Rome to humble Israel. Yet, God said that after He used Assyria (for example) to judge Israel, then Assyria in turn would be humbled because of their mercilessness.
All this is part of God being a father who disciplines children for their rebelliousness. God is using people to punish other people. Ouch.
God will also be using people to show mercy and blessing to people. This should come mostly from the minority ("remnant") of believers in the God of Jesus (the God of Israel as well).
In ancient times, the God of Israel used Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Greece and Rome to humble Israel. Yet, God said that after He used Assyria (for example) to judge Israel, then Assyria in turn would be humbled because of their mercilessness.
All this is part of God being a father who disciplines children for their rebelliousness. God is using people to punish other people. Ouch.
God will also be using people to show mercy and blessing to people. This should come mostly from the minority ("remnant") of believers in the God of Jesus (the God of Israel as well).
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Then Would My [Jesus'] Servants Fight
THE ARTISTE sends this article on pacifism. WHAT THINK YE?
If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight. Just because Jesus spoke these words to his followers, it makes no sense to apply them to everyone else: - Since God has conferred an earthly kingdom on the Jews, it is appropriate for them to fight for it and inappropriate for us to handicap their efforts, especially when the moral standards of their enemies are so abysmal. - If we believe that God expects a higher standard of Israel than of her enemies, it is evidence either of our religiosity or bigotry: religiosity if we base our standards on the biblical record, bigotry if we base our standards on the world's behavior. - If we hold Israel to a higher standard because of the biblical record, it is evidence that we are either Jewish patriots or Christian hypocrites: if Jewish, because we think ourselves the chosen stewards of the Law; if Christian, because we think likewise but apply a higher standard to Israel than Christian lands. - If we hold Israel to a higher standard because we are Christian, we are derelict if we dictate how she should pursue security while disregarding the main thing our bible says about that: her need to accept the Messiah whose rejection resulted in the loss of her land almost two thousand years ago. - It is inapt, if we believe that Israel's loss in 70 AD was a result of God's disfavor, to disbelieve that her gain in 1948 was a result of his favor -- or at the very least, his conditional favor. - Finally, if we believe that it is God's prerogative to chastise those whom he loves, it is inappropriate -- heartless, self-righteous, and presumptuous -- for us to dictate his own times and conditions, or to second-guess his seasons of favor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)