Economics: the Rich and the Poor

In socialistic/communistic government systems, the idea of having people with "above average means" is seen as a bad thing. To an extent, we see this even in our free enterprise system of economics - those who have more are expected to be taxed more and give more to those who don't have it. Now, before I go further, I will admit that wealth is a gift from God and is to be used to benefit the poor, especially fellow believers. However, what this post deals with is the wealthy in the economic system.
For a growing economy, there must be a wealthy class, more so now than ever before. Only the wealthy have extra capital to speculate on new ideas; only the wealthy have the huge sums of money to finance the large purchases necessary to start a company (land, buildings, machines, etc.). Now, with stocks and bonds, many people can pool their resources to accomplish the same thing, but one wealthy entrepreneur can make decisions and get the ball rolling (so to speak) much faster than a group of people, especially if that group differs on the manner in which to accomplish the goal. Historically, it has been the wealthy who have pulled the poorer classes out of the muck of poverty by taking risks and producing jobs. Without the resources of the wealthy, the poor are not given the chance to better their condition. To divide up all wealth is to divy up all the cake batter before the cake is even baked. Only by leaving a large sum of the batter in the bowl can everyone have a piece of the cake. In the same way, leaving the money in the hands of the few in the end will provide the benefits to all. This, however, relies on the wise actions of those with the wealth. Wealth that is wasted is a benefit to none. Like all power and authority, wealth is a gift to be used for the greatest benefit possible. A part of that benefit is speculation and investment in new inventions, markets, and industries - all of which benefit the society as a whole. And the benefit of the free enterprise system is that the roles of wealthy and poor are not permant but are fluid. Through saving and wise decisions, the poor can become wealthy; conversely, through foolishness and waste, the wealthy may quickly find themselves as poor.

The Cycle

I find it interesting how we (society) are stuck in a cycle of technology and time. We are incredibly busy with expectations at work and even the expectations of how much we should get done at home. We need to drive faster, fly faster, and walk faster so that we have more free time after we accomplish our goal. To accomplish this, we make our machines and computers faster and more capable of working on their own. The roadways are faster and wider, allowing for more cars to move quickly. While all of this is nice, it doesn't help in the end. With faster travel, we are expected to be able to do more, or go more places, with the time we are "saving." With faster internet and computers, we are expected to do more and do it more quickly. In the end, the more time we "save," the more we are expected to do. We are in a cycle of trying to save time but then being expected to use that extra time. We don't really have more time to relax, we can just do more with our work time. Is this wrong? Not really, except if we let it consume us and cause worry. To an extent, this constant increase in productivity is helping us to "redeem the time" (Eph. 5:16) better than ever before, so we can be thankful for that. Still, it is nice to have time off.

A Case for the Arts

For my grad. class on Philippians, we had to read the first chapter of The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark A. Noll. I will say now that I didn't read the whole book; this post is discussing only what the author stated in this first chapter.
That being said, I encourage people to (critically) read at least this first chapter of the book. Don't just swallow all that he says, but as I hope to point out bellow, there are some things that Noll makes a good case for. My own thoughts and ideas will be interjected into the discussion.
Noll's main point seems to be that evangelicals (used in a somewhat broad sense) have abandoned the arts and critical thinking fields of education and life. His point is true; where are the scientists, composers, and artists who made and did great things because of, not in spite of, their Christian beliefs? He says that it's not Christian academia that has faltered but the evangelical mindset itself. I can't agree with Noll when he says that to have abandoned these fields is sin, but I must say that it definitely shows a lack on our part in what we pursue.
In defense of "evangelicals," though, we still have far too few pastors, missionaries, and church leaders/helpers. We have had to somewhat abandon the arts, etc. simply to fill the need we already have.
Or perhaps we have abandoned the arts because we somehow view them as "less holy" or not as important as full-time ministry. Or because we see the arts and sciences has having been taken over completely by the world, making them a sort of icon for worldliness and godlessness.
But can we simply abandon these pursuits? Noll points out that because evangelicals have pulled out of the secular institutions, there is no longer a voice to combat the ungodly teaching that is going on there. Still, I wonder how much headway a believer would make in these academic circles when theory is taken as proven fact [evolution] and direct proof [such as for the Flood] is ignored and mocked.
My personal thoughts on the matter... Noll is correct in saying that evangelicals have largely - if not completely - abandoned the higher/logical pursuits and the arts. Just for example: the movies, novels, and plays written by believers generally not only have pathetic writing style (weak story line, dry and uninteresting characters, and cheesy plots) but are generally off on one or more major points of theology that most believers would hold to. In our music circles, we proclaim the superiorty of classical music because of it's style and yet have produced no composers (of note) in how many years? Rather than curse the darkness, we need to remove the darkness by bringing in the light. Has the world taken over the sciences, arts, and academia as a whole? I would have to say, "yes." But we as believers should seek to at least produce quality Christian alternatives to those areas, if not seek to "reconquest" them from the world. I am not expecting the world to agree with our faith, nor am I even hinting that we should water down our beliefs in order to be accepted. On the contrary, we should use our beliefs as the very fuel to drive us to excell in the arts and sciences, using these avenues to show the world the truth about God.

The Weaker and Stronger Brother (part II)

(for the biblical context of this article, read Rom. 14 and 15)
In regards to the whole issue of the weaker and stronger brother, I think that in the end it is the responsibility of the stronger brother to change what is necessary to help the weaker brother, but it's also their responsibility to help the weaker brother to "grow up" so to speak. Now, I don't mean that the stronger brother should be pushy and obnoxious, but the weaker brother is weak for a reason. And once that reason is addressed biblically, it is completely realistic to expect that he will realize that the issue is his own personal struggle (and so not a measure of spirituality for everyone) and/or realize that he doesn't need to be weak in that area. This process can only be done through a great deal of time, effort, and love on both sides of the issue.
The main trouble is that I've seen far too many stronger brothers become frustrated and end up kind of shaming or beating the weaker brother into submission, or at least into silence. And I have been the recipient of this treatment on more than one occasion concerning various issues.
The responsibility of the weaker brother is to realize that just because something is sin to him doesn't mean that it is sin for everyone else. If he can't do it with a clear conscience, then for him to do it would be sin. However, if it is an issue of personal standards rather than direct biblical principle, then the weaker brother should be willing to let the stronger answer to God for what he's doing rather than try to make him conform to some human standard.
I also see a difference between someone who is caused to offend their conscience by an action and someone who is simply "offended" by an action. For example, when I was a child, some friends of mine were not allowed to play with guns, G.I. Joes, or anything like that, but my brothers and I played almost exclusively with military-style toys and games. So when these friends came over to our house, we would put the G.I. Joes in the closet and play with something that wouldn't offend them. They were not caused to sin by what we did; they just didn't want to do it themselves. In cases like this, I won't stop an action (remove it from my life), but I won't do it in front of the other person, nor will I flaunt it. In this sense, the principle of "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Rom. 12:18 ESV) comes into play.

Ozymandias

I don't normally read a lot of poetry, but this has to be one of my favorite poems. I really makes you stop and think about what is truly valuable and lasting (Matt. 6:19-20).

"Ozymandias"
Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveler from and antique land who said:
Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains, round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The low and level sands stretch far away.

God's Will

I'm reading a commentary on Philippians by James Montgomer Boice for one of my classes, and he has an interesting discussion on knowing the will of God for you life. If you want the full discussion, you'll have to read the book for yourself (pp. 233-9), but I wanted to put the principles down here. Let me know what you think.

1) You must be wiling to do His will even before you know what it is.
2) Nothing can be the will of God that is contrary to the Word of God (Jn. 6:40; Rom. 12:1-2; Col. 3:23; Phil. 4:8).
3) Daily and even hourly fellowship with the Lord (Ps. 32:8).
4) You must be prepared for the Lord to guide you into new ways.

The Weaker and Stronger Brothers (Rom. 14-15)

As always with my Sunday school notes, these are very rough and hopefully someday will be put in a more readable format. Until then, I hope this helps.
Before looking at my comments, read the passage for yourself.

The Weaker and Stronger Brothers (Romans 14-15)

- Explain difference between principles (found in the text of Scripture [e.g. “I will set no wicked thing before my eyes”] and standards (what we put in our lives to help us obey the principles).
- Paul counts himself among the strong.
- We are never told to judge another person; however, 15:14 speaks of admonishing others. The word here has the idea of teaching or warning. In other words, we are not supposed to judge others based upon our own standards; we are to show them what God says on an issue. We must remember that the same principle can, at times, be kept several different ways. Direct statements however, God has already passed judgment on, and therefore, we are just when we warn the sinner about the judgment that God has already prescribed on that action.

Strong Brother
Description: eats the food (v. 3) and doesn’t regard the day (vv. 5-6).
Duties: 1) Don’t regard the weaker brother with contempt (vv. 3, 10)
2) Don’t put a stumblingblock in a brother’s way (v. 13)
3) Walk according to love (we look at this in greater depth later but mention it here since it shows up in this context and is specifically stated to the stronger brother).

Weak Brother
- The trouble that I find is that we have this idea of just letting the weaker brother stay weak. Granted, the stronger should not try to cram their ideas down the throat of the weaker, but the goal should be the maturity of the faith of the weaker brother to the point that they are no longer weak.
Description: eats only vegetables (v. 2) and observes certain days (vv. 5-6)
Duties: 1) Don’t judge the other brother [each person is a servant of God (v. 3) and God can help them to stand firm in the faith even though you don’t think it is of faith (v. 4) – as a side note, the emphasis is on God keeping the believer standing, not the believer doing it (c.f. Gal. 3:3)].
2) Don’t eat (or do) what/when you doubt (v. 23) [Schreiner translates v. 20b as “stumbles” rather than gives offense (NASB). Listen to your conscience, and if you feel that it is sin, don’t do it because for you it is sin.

Both
- Both are to operate out of love: the weaker by not judging, the stronger by not holding the weaker in contempt.
- Both are servants of the Lord.