My judgement is that one of the most frustrating forms of systematic oppression comes from corrupt government officials, f

--
==================================================================
This mobile text message is brought to you by AT&T

Nation vs. Corporation: 21st Century Warfare

Well, much to the glee of sci-fi devotees and dystopian lit fans everywhere, it appears that we finally have the first instance of an open and declared war between a nation (the USA) and a corporation (British Petroleum). Drill, Baby Drill!

 

The rhetoric going around is that the a "war-like" and "full scale military response" is to be sent to the Gulf of Mexico (yes, this is the 3rd Gulf War in 2 decades) to combat the "environmental terrorism" and the "act of war on our soil" that has taken place at the hands of the foreign invaders into our waters. The government is seeking to seize the assets of BP forcefully, as in most any non-ideological war. One has to wonder if the high muckety-mucks aren't seeing this as an opportunity to plunder someone to pay down our enormous debt with China.

 

It is interesting that the "Tea Party" has come more to the defense of the British and have not symbolically thrown barrels of oil into Boston Harbor (of course, BP is already doing that for them). But really, for such a reactionary and visceral political movement, why aren't they rallying behind ideas to reduce the dominance of carbon based fuels in our energy economy?

 

I heard a very interesting piece on Rush Limbaugh's program a few weeks ago. Quoting a story in a UK newspaper, an "expert" (probably with a white coat) said that the amount of oil that has spilled into the Gulf of Mexico in "the biggest environmental and economic catastrophe of our time" is equal to the amount of oil that is spilled EVERY YEAR in the Niger River in Nigeria. Apparently, though Americans are all up in arms about the destruction that this oil spill is causing and will cause in the next few years, this is the same level of pollution that is inflicted on the Africans each year for our sakes. Stated in the piece is that approximately 40% of our oil comes from this area.

 

When will it be obvious that Obama is really out to fight a war on private enterprise? On the other side, what would I expect my government to do in a situation this dire?

Does an emphasis on your part erode faith in God's part?

Does Bonhoeffer's emphasis on "First Step" and "Only those who obey can believe" erode the truth of the Gospels, as explained in Romans and Hebrews, concerning the new identity of righteousness of the believer?

Over the last several years, I have done a Bible study, mostly in the Epistle to the Romans but also touching on similar statements in the Epistle to the Hebrews, concerning the status, tense, and permanency of the righteousness imputed to the believer through Jesus' sacrifice. The practical application is that, as Bonhoeffer has so appropriately stated, "Only those who believe [in the imputed identity of righteousness] can obey [the dictates of God]," or put another way: You already are (have been made) the righteousness of God. You cannot become any more righteous. God doesn't have anymore righteousness to give you. If He did, He would have. You are the righteousness of God, so act like it. (Obviously, this applies only to those who have committed their entire beings to Jesus, offering the circumcision of the heart to give the "first faith" to Him, including in the sufficiency of His sacrifice.)

In my frequent study along the lines of, shall we say, "righteousness consciousness" and the emphasis on God's provisional grace, I have become curious about what compels a man, such as Paul, to continue to fervently apply himself to avoid sin and seek God-honoring actions, attitudes, activities. It seems more noble for someone to be compelled through positive motivation (i.e. this pleases God and you will prosper / be happy for it) versus negative motivation (i.e. God doesn't like that and you will suffer for it), but perhaps I am just not that noble all the time. Maybe there is a place for both the positive and negative motivation.

Jesus uses positive motivation, such as in Luke 7 when the prostitute was washing Jesus' feet with her hair, Jesus uses the positive motivation of forgiveness and love to encourage a change in her lifestyle whereas the Pharisees are shown as desiring Jesus to use harsh negative motivation, railing her for her sins.

Jesus also uses negative motivation, such as His diatribes against the Pharisees (Matthew 23) and in talking with the man healed by the pool at Bethesda saying "See you have been made well. Go and sin no more lest a worse thing should come upon you" (John 5:14).

Paul says "the love of Christ compels us" - positive motivation. David prays "unite my heart to fear Your name" - negative motivation.

These scriptures reaffirm my long-held understanding that "those who believe obey". But Bonhoeffer also makes a convincing case that disobedience is cured by obedience, not through an appeal to belief. I know that what brought me to Christ, or rather what caused me to humble myself and accept the One who sought me, what the final realization of the horror that I saw myself to be and my complete inability to improve myself. Rather than becoming more noble with age, I was inflicting more pain. When I heard the gospel (and it was in a Pentecostal Holiness church that I first heard the gospel) that Jesus Christ can regenerate a person and free a person from the bondage of sin, and also when the fear of hell broke through my atheistic Shangri-La, and also when I was starving on a train with no money for food and a man gave me two vegan-friendly bean burritos, then I let my guard down and God filled me. Over the next several years, I saw that all my problems were not solved, but now I had the solution to all my problems. I became more and more noble even as I was zealous in obedience to the dictates of God.

I could make all sorts of excuses for why I have not felt the same zeal for obedience in the last year or so, though I still hold fast to Christ just with weariness over some moral battles. Perhaps, the time to ponder whether Bonhoeffer's exuberance for obedience is contrary to my understanding of the regeneration is not when I am frustrated at my own imperfect obedience. So, I will take to heart Bonhoeffer's appeal: As I obey, so I will believe. Jesus, you who are able to keep me from stumbling, I present my members to you. I will glorify God in my body, which is the Lord's. I am bought with a price, and I refuse to be an unprofitable servant. I am not a son of belial, I have been made a son of God. I will work out my own salvation with fear and trembling. Not as the satanic "I will", but as the Spirit of God searches the deep things of my spirit, even so I will welcome and take part in the Spirit helping in my infirmity. (The word for "help" in Romans 8:26 means to "take hold opposite together", like how it takes two people to lift and carry a couch: taking hold of opposite ends at the same time and with equal effort... more on that later.)

When are you a missionary and when are you a parasite?

I heard a fascinating piece on NPR's "This American Life" a little while back that described that over the last 50 years aid has flowed in the billions of dollars to Haiti, a country the size of Central Florida, and yet year after year the GDP per capita gets lower and lower. There are now 10,000 NGO's in Haiti trying to help and 50% of all American households donated to the earthquake relief effort (including this one), but for all that there is no lasting solution.

*CONCERNING MICRO-FINANCE*

I have been opposed to debt as a personal choice. There is a proper place for the wise use of debt for large ticket semi-necessary items. I have taken on payments for a house (in order to garden and otherwise homestead as we see that as something that we will want to export: the liberty from repressive systems that comes from owning your own sources of sustenance to as great an extent practical) and for a family car (I live in a suburb-otropolis, public transportation is definitely lacking, and bicycling is impractical). It is because of this disparaging of the flagrant use of easy credit that I see crippling so many of my American peers, I am suspicious about the euphoria surrounding micro-finance as a way of alleviating poverty sustainably. It apparently does work, I have not heard much bad press about micro-lending when its done for charitable / entrepreneurial purposes. However while I was on Kiva.org a while back, I noticed how many people already had plans relying on "the next loan." That language of continuous debt, even in small sequential amounts, is what leads to the slavery and dependency that is not in keeping with a free, prosperous household or society.

However, the NPR episode described how small infrastructural improvements (the price of potable water, the reliability of irrigation water, or proper shipping and handling of products) can really cause a big increase in wealth distribution and quality of life. Should these be done through micro-finance? The profiled NGO seemed to have too many rules and applied them too rigidly. Would cultural sensitivity be increased by putting the money in the hands of a local (with accountability by requiring pay-back)?

*AIDING VS. BAITING*

The dilemma about how to transition from relief to aid, from hand-outs after crisis to supporting a sustainable economy, was well illustrated with the water situation:

Earthquake hits.
People need access to clean water.
Aid organizations pay for water and distribute it freely.
[Pause]

[Rewind]
Before the earthquake, an industry existed to fill the potable water needs of the people through trucks with tanks making rounds and charging per gallon (or whatever). It worked, apparently. It employed people. It was a native enterprise and it required very real buy-in from the people.

[Fast Forward]
Should the government take over water distribution in order to ensure a more equitable distribution? Can the government be expected to ensure equity? Should micro-finance institutions help re-establish the pre-crisis infrastructure by loaning to the entrepreneurs whose trucks were damaged?

I think its safe to say that these questions are thorny. Subsidized American grains undercut locally raised grains in other places of the world so farmers give up their profession and fill the bread lines, but there's bread in the bread line for all. Donated discard t-shirts of sports teams that didn't win a particular championship flood impoverished nations. The corporations get a tax credit for a waste product turned charitable giving, meanwhile the local tailor and seamstress sell that many fewer garments and have that much less to feed their children. Is all aid from a rich country to a poor country bad and / or demeaning? I should think not. But we need to bolster infrastructure and not undermine existing, if inefficient or even somewhat inequitable, systems. Blatant disregard for the poor, obscene class divides need to be addressed. This is an issue of moral infrastructure.

*MORAL TO THE STORY*

Moral infrastructure: encouraging the mores of a society to be those which will support the society's continued, sustainable, and basically equitable (not in material wealth, but more in opportunity, e.g. access to market, equal protection), and (this is critical) self-reliant existence. The people should be encouraged to respond to corruption not with cynicism (because that accomplishes nothing and is indeed what those who benefit from the corruption most desire) but instead to combat any instance of corruption with vigilante violence. Yes, I say a marginalized people should unite and riot when their government is acting in openly unfair ways. That includes in America. Do it the Gandhi way or do it another way. Do not harm life but why not harm the property of those involved in nefarious schemes, subverting the God-given intent for civil government?

A society whose people are fomenting a moral revolution, requiring an equal protection and access to markets, that is the culture that infrastructural aid will benefit.

So, who comes first: the preacher, the soup-line cook, the banker or the systems engineer? I don't know, but perhaps these are the roles for the missionary. Not the laborer. Generally, economies with high unemployment or employment of uncertain duration typically have more and better labor available than what a few Americans can provide. Pay the locals. Pray with the locals. Donate the skills and / or capital that is not available. But ultimately, encourage a moral economy and just governance.

Your thoughts?

Pneumatic Logic: The Word & Spirit Agree

The first post in nearly all blogs is "The purpose of this blog is...." or "This blog will showcase..." or some other foundational mission statement. So, why not:

The purpose of this blog is to put on display the inner ramblings of my brain, which has the habit of musing on things theological, philosophical, political, scientific, horticultural, and DIY-ical. Generally, in that order.

I am a Christian (born-again charismatic) interested in social justice issues. I am a Chemical Engineer working as a consultant with municipal governments in Central Florida on water resources projects (potable water, waste water, reuse water, and storm water). I am the husband of a magnificent wife and the father of three little blessings aged 4, 2, and 8-months. My wife is the primary caretaker of our children, our gardens, our fruit trees (also in their infancy), and our livestock (comprised mainly of 4 goats and 29 laying hens at the moment). We aim to raise as much of our food on our 1-ac homestead as practical.

I am currently reading The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer along with a friend. Following posts will contain my reflections on that book as well as a Biblical word study on "help". Politics and science will always make occasional in roads too, I mean this is a fascinating world we live in.

Thanks for reading.