Themes of Work, Power, and Freedom Monday, Jul 6 2009

This article is an attempt to look at both capitalism and cooperative socialism in relation to the themes of freedom, power, and community. This article is not the normal type of literature which comes out of the modern socialist movement. It does represent how I think on these issues however. Further more I think that perhaps Christianity is also to a certain degree concerned about issues of freedom, power, and community. If I am correct in this then the discussion of these themes might be one way to think about the relationship between socialism and Christianity.

 

Note. I have spent most of my adult life working  in the human services branch of county government. Certainly many of the generalization that I make are based on my own experience in government and on my observations of the experience of those  around me. I have always been a line staff person and never in management. My current income is what I would call middle middle class. Therefore I suspect the situation of a majority of workers in relationship to power, freedom, and community is similar to mine.  However I am also aware that many higher status, professional workers often see themselves as in some sense privileged and may think that my analyses is skewed. What can I say? My thoughts are based on what I experience and on the best of my understanding.

 

Glenn

 

Themes of freedom, power, and community

 

 

 

Most Americans believe that we live in a “free” society. The United States is the land of the “free.” “Freedom” is one of the most important words in this nation’s political lexicon and most Americans take pride in the fact that America is a “free” society. I want to start out be examining this idea
of American freedom. First I want to state that I believe that the American idea of freedom is not in fact a delusional concept. It is real. Traditional American concepts of freedom, ideas that have to do with ideas of limited, representative government,  traditional ideas of freedom of
religion, democracy, the freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom from arbitrary state power are all valid concepts. They all have a certain degree of reality within the context of American society. They are not fictitious concepts. Americans have a right to feel pride in these freedoms.

 

While these freedoms are real, it is also a reality that there are aspects of American life which are lived in the antithesis of “freedom.” This realm of life centers primarily within the economic sphere of work and workplace. It is characterized more by freedom’s opposites, unfreedom, servitude, and submission. To initiate  discussion of this realm I will  start  by suggesting some definitions of “freedom.” This is  not easily done because freedom is generally not defined precisely by most people. However in spite of this, we can make some generalizations. Most people define freedom in primarily negative terms. Freedom is experienced as the lack of arbitrary oppressive restraints and limitations to one’s actions. Thus in America freedom is defined by the relative absence of governmental restraints on life, liberty, the use of property,etc. Often in the  conservative political lexicon, freedom is simply identified as an absence of governmental power or interference in one’s life.

 

However lets attempt to define freedom positively. One definition is that freedom is the ability of people and individuals to do what they want to do independent of institutional controls. Again in the American context the primary limitations of this freedom are normally seen as coming from government, the power of arbitrary religion, or from cultural limitations such as racism or sexism. What is intrinsically interesting about this is that the structure of the economic system or the  structures of individual companies and corporations are very seldom viewed as in any way limitations on the freedom of the individual worker or of people. In fact even within the political Left, economic oppression is normally seen as being only about the unequal distribution of economic resources. Left liberal analysis or even socialist analysis seldom questions the unjust and dictatorial structure both of the workplace and of economic institutions.

 

Yet this is what must be done. The real limitations of freedom in the modern world of advanced capitalism in fact comes not from the governmental realm but instead from the very nature of capitalist society itself. To initiate an analysis of the unfreedom that is built into the workplaces and economic institutions of capitalism one must first deal with the issue of “power.” Freedom can not be defined adequately in separation from the concept of power. The freedom to act in a certain way, the freedom to do as one desires only exists if one has the power or authority to do those things. If the  power or authority that another over you prevents you  from doing what you want to do in the way that you want to do it  do  then you are not free at least not in the immediate social context.

 

The capitalist work place of course is a system of structured power relationships in which the majority of workers in fact have little power over either the immediate workplace and certainly none over the over all direction of the firms and businesses which “employ” them. They do not make decisions either collectively or individually regarding the workplace or regarding the overall economic direction of the firms which employ them.

Thus in their lifes as workers they are not free. To characterize the situation further. Except for those born to wealth all people within capitalist societies must sell their labor to either the state, non profit organizations, or  more commonly capitalist firms in order to live. For the vast majority of people no real alternative to working for a weekly paycheck  exists. During the work day, often eight to ten hours, one is not free in any meaningful sense. One’s status is one of subordination to the economic firm to whom one is employed. One lives at the beck and call of one’s supervisor, boss, or the production schedule etc. The rules of the work environment is controlled by a cooperate office and corporate hierarchy which generally views its employees as an expendable resource, as a factor of production.

 

All of this of course explains many aspects of American life and particularly how Americans define freedom. Freedom in the American context is always about how one spends one’s “leisure” time. It is about the power of the consumer; it is about the beautiful automobile that symbolizes one’s freedom. It is about the golden years of secure retirement which is freedom; it is about one’s freedom as a consumer ala Milton Friedman. It is about one’s clothing styles, one’s sexual life style; ie it is about every thing except work.

 

Furthermore, freedom is almost always  defined as an individual good and not  communally. It has little to do with community. Now lets look at the issue of community within the context of American capitalist society. It is often stated, I believe correctly, that community has declined as an aspect of life within this society. What does this mean? What is this “community” which has declined.?
There seems to be two primary ways of defining community. One form of community is what can be called organic or
traditional community. By this I mean the traditional  hunting and gathering, horticultural, or agrarian village communities in which the vast majorities of human beings have lived through most of human history. These small scale traditional communities in which ties of kinship, common religious values, cultural ties, common political and economic activities united people in a deep net of relationships,.this form of community  scarcely exists within the United States any longer. The closest this nation has to this sort of community are the old ethnic working class communities of past generations.

 

However the increasing suburbanization and corporate individualization of people is increasingly erasing this sort of community from American life. What then functions as community for Americans? Church and organized religion? Religion is one of the strongest sources of “intentional” community in America. However since most church members share little of their lifes together either by ways of kinship, or in common economic or political activities; the actual communal bonds created by modern American religion are in general rather weak. The other great source of communal bonds, ie workplace friendships and relationships that Americans experience in fact comes from out of the workplace. This is true in spite of all that has been said previously about the oppressive nature of the capitalist workplace. It is true because in spite of its oppressive aspects

the workplace is still the place in which most people spend the greatest amount to their waking lifes. Therefore one would expect the workplace to be the source of many of the most important human communal relationships. In fact the work place in many ways is the modern equivalent of the tradition village in which the common work and shared life of the villagers was the norm.

 

Unfortunately the positive potential of the workplace as the basis of modern community has been severely compromise by its unfree nature and its hierarchical dictatorial structure. This is why for instance are there so few television shows such as “The Office” in which the life of work is shown as a dominating aspect of social life. The reason as is portrayed in “The Office” is that  generally the work place is not experienced by  workers as a place of freedom or as a place in which to express one’s creativity through work. Thus “The Office” wonderfully shows both the beautiful potential and the down side of normal work life. It shows the community that the work life creates and also the arbitrary problematic forces that work again it. Interestingly the character Michael Scott  the boss of the office is both the hero who alway strived to create community which simultaneously his arbitrary and often bizare actions undercut it. 

 

To summarize, Cooperativism wishes to destroy the dictatorship of capitalist control of the workplace. It seeks to end capitalist power and replace it with worker control over the economic institutions of society. The purpose of work within the cooperativist society will be not just to receive a bi weekly paycheck. It will also be about the expression of one ability to make decisions, to express one’s power and creativity through one’s work. The surplus value of one’s work within the cooperative firms of a socialist society will accrue to workers as individuals and workers communally be adding to  the firms capital base. Finally because the workplace will be experienced as being a place of freedom and self determination it will also be experienced as one of community.

Glenn King

Leave a Response »

 

A Song to Neda Tuesday, Jun 23 2009

Enclosed are links to both the Song to Neda and Poem for Neda  posted on The Writing Life II blog. As those  following the current political struggles  in Iran are aware,  Neda Agha-Soltan,  a 26 year old woman – was killed this past Saturday as she got out of her automobile for a breath of air. She was shot in the heart  presumably by forces firing at anti government protestors of the stolen Iranian elections. See the NYT’s article.  Her death was recorded on U-tube and has been circulated globally and Neda is now mourned as a martyr and a symbol of sufferings of Iran’s people. Perhaps this poem and the music may give a better picture of the true nature of the current events in Iran than would several news stories. Part of the poem goes thus”

 

Stay, Neda—
Look at this city
At the shaken foundations of palaces,
The height of Tehran’s maple trees,
They call us “dust,” and if so
Let us sully the air for the oppressor
Don’t go, Neda
-

Glenn

Leave a Response »

 

An Alternative Socialism Monday, Jun 22 2009

While the headline in a national news weekly recently started with an article entitled “We Are All Socialists Now,” the reality is obviously quite different. From all appearances Capitalism has won the ideological war against socialism which began when socialism took the world stage during the first half of the 19th century. Capitalism of some sort seems to most people particularly within the United States to be the natural destiny of humanity. However while capitalism won the war against the brutal perversion of socialism called communism and while the great social democratic parties of Europe seem to have given up on any socialist vision greater than that of a mixed social democratic economy, the instinct for social justice, human equality, community, and freedom that socialism historically has tried to realize has not died. The sparks of socialism still survive within  small groups and  within individuals in the United States and many other parts of the world. As the current world recession, energy, ecological and global warming crisis show; world capitalism’s future is not assured. Socialism could ultimately win the last war.

 

However a precondition for that victory must be a rethinking of the socialist vision. Most Americans and in fact most of the world’s people still imagine that socialism is primarily about the power of the state being utilized to dominate or control the economic direction of societies. This certainly has been the dominant conception of the Marxian and Fabian forms of socialism. Both European Social Democracy and Soviet Communism envisioned future socialist societies as being  based on statist models of  governmental ownership and control of all of the economic activities of society. Little if any role existed in either model for private enterprises or for companies which were directly owned and managed by workers themselves. The primary difference between these two was that Communism supported the totalitarian communist state and Social Democracy supported the western liberal democratic state. These are important differences.

 

However  historically other powerful minority forms of socialism  have existed which envisioned  alternative non statist models of a socialist future.   The socialist movement of  19th century France was dominated by “associational socialism” which foresaw a future socialist society in which workers themselves through their labor associations would ultimately take control of society. The economy of this future socialist society would be dominated by  worker owned and managed cooperatives / companies. Latter in the late 1800s and early 20th century this associative or cooperative socialism transformed into revolutionary anarcho syndicalism.  Anarcho syndicalism still  held the same basic socialist vision of a free society directly controlled by workers themselves however.   Spain and Italy were also dominated by anarchist ideals which also rejected the vision  of socialism  in which the state / government would hold absolute power over the economic institutions of society. In stead the socialism of these nations advocated a socialism of free producers or associations as did the French.

 

In the United States the socialist movement dominated by the Socialist Party of America reached its high point of influence in the early decades of the 20th century. Early American socialism seemed to take an intermediate position  between the purely statist concept of socialism and the more syndicalist forms of socialism. Out side of the American socialist movement during the 19th century  at least two movements one dominated primarily by American farmers and the other dominated primarily by American workers  developed ideas similar to that of Southern European socialism. These were the Knights of Labor one of the first and largest national labor unions that developed during the 19th century  and the other being People’s Party the agrarian party of reform which represented the interest of the impoverished  farmers of the American South and West. Both of these movements before they collapsed in the 1890s held a strong belief in economic cooperatives as the solution to the  “wage slavery”  of workers and the  poverty of indebted small farmers. Both typified the desire of workers and farmers for an economic system that  would incorporate the values of economic democracy and worker self management.

 

In France the anarcho syndicalist movement reached its height during the first decade of the 20th century and then disintegrated. The anarchists of Italy  fell together with the socialists before Mussolini’s fascists in the  1920s. The powerful anarcho syndicalist Spanish labor unions and anarchist dominated villages fell before General Franco’s fascist troops during the Spanish Civil War. From  that point in history it appeared that the alternative socialist tradition had been cast into the dust bin of history.

 

  However the vision of a worker self managed society or of economic democracy while it  ceased to be embeded in powerful  political movements continued in another form. Large numbers of workers and reformers beginning  in the 1800’s while avoiding politics and revolutionary rhetoric  worked hard to develop various  forms of  worker owned and managed businesses / cooperatives which have been  economically successful though out the world. These businesses if they were small often  are operated on principles of direct democracy by their worker owners. If large they are commonly governed  by workers councils elected by worker owners.  In general the worker councils of large cooperatives often having hundreds of workers  will hire a team of professional managers which instead of being to accountable to stockholders are ultimately responsible to  the worker owners of the company.

 

Today thousands worker owned cooperatives through out the world successfully compete for markets and customers. These cooperatives which are of many kinds agricultural, consumer, producer, service, etc have not become the dominant economic sector in the modern world. However many have become very successful in competing in the hostile environment of capitalism, Some  examples are the strong worker cooperative movement in the Emilia Romagna area of Northeast Italy. Of the 7500 cooperatives in this area over two thirds are worker owned. Over 10% of the work force in the region is employed by cooperatives. In Switzerland two of the largest supermarket chains Migros and Coop are in cooperative form. In Japan over 14 million citizens are members of the consumer cooperative movement.

 

However  the most successful example of worker owned cooperative success is the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation  head quartered in the town of Mondragon Spain. In 1956  five workers who had been trained at a technical school founded  by the Roman Catholic priest Don Jose Maria Aristmendi developed the first worker owed cooperative ULGOR to produce kerosene stoves. The company initially employed 24  worker owners. Now the world wide Mondragon Cooperative Corporation employs over 85,000 workers in various industries  in nations such as Brazil and China through out the world. The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation includes a united system of  self managing banks, insurance companies , a university and many other economic enterprises. Currently the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation is the 7th largest corporation in Spain. The example of the Mondragon and other successful examples of worker ownership and self management give the lie to the commonly held belief that workers simply do not have the ability to manage their own workplaces and companies. They give evidence that a different form of civilization is possible.

 

As this brief historical summery shows the statist form of socialism which is in fact what most Americans think of when they think of socialism has never been the only form of socialism. Another alternative form of the socialist vision has also existed.  I would argue that it is this alternative vision of socialism with which the future of the socialist movement lies. This is not to suggest that the anarchists, the syndicalists etc had all the right ideas. The political strategies developed by  these movements were extremely  flawed thus causing their  ultimate dismiss. Social Democracy in the form of the German Social Democratic Party, the France Socialist Party and the British Labor party were strategically much wiser in their overall championship of reforms which would help workers immediately. However I believe that the basic motivational vision of socialism lies in its vision of a free and just society in which workers themselves own the means of production. This is the liberatory vision of the alternative socialism in which the future lies.

 

Glenn King

 

Leave a Response »

 

God and Socialism? Monday, Jun 22 2009

What has God to do with  Socialism? Within  contemporary political and theological language God and Socialism do not mix. In fact Socialism does not mix well in any of the normal forms of contemporary thought or language. Socialism in the popular imagination is assumed to be a discredited political economic system which was  discredited with the fall of the  “communist” societies of Eastern Europe. And of course everyone knows including many self described Socialists, who should know better, that Socialism is primarily about either protecting the welfare state, or the extension of the power of governments into the economic life of societies in order to supposedly meet human needs.
Since every one thinks that they  ”know” these things,  socialism has been relegated to outside the norms of “realistic” and “civilized” conversation. Thus  one of the surest ways a potential political leader can be marginalized  is to be  tinged with the label of “socialist.”

 

 Even those individuals and people who secretly in their heart of hearts believe that a little socialism might be a good thing will never admit it publicly due to fear of the consequences. Further more because everyone believes that socialism has no future in the real world it is considered an act of folly for any one, who wishes to be taken seriously, to suggest it as a real alternative for society. One may discuss socialism in the smallest of private circles. However any attempt by individuals to discuss socialism outside of these circles is to risk being seen as naive, out of touch, as perhaps even being morally diseased in some way. So why talk about God and Socialism?
 
God and Socialism should be discussed because the moral character of God and God’s kingdom and justice can not be understood without talking about Socialism. The very nature of the justice teachings of the Bible as manifested in the Torah, the Prophets, and Jesus’ teachings on the Kingdom of God can not be separated from the political ideals and values of Socialism. I know how outrageous this sounds to most people so I will explain. I will first explain what socialism is not and then I will explain what it is. After that of course I will be able to show its significance to the kingdom of God.

 

One of the commonest errors perpetuated is that Socialism is the equivalent to the failed Communist systems of the old Soviet Union and of the other “Communist”  regimes of Eastern Europe. The fact is that Communism  was based on a perversion of the teachings of Karl Marx which came to interpret communism  as being about one party states, dictatorship, the repression of political and religious freedoms, atheism, etc. I can discuss how this perversion of Socialist ideas developed in another  post. However be assured that Communist totalitarianism was no more socialist than  the Crusades and the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages were authentically Christian. Socialist values are  the opposite of the values that have become associated with  Communism.

 

The other common myth  is that socialism is all about government domination of economic institutions. Let me  state  simply that socialism is not all about the state. So what is it then?  I do not want to discuss the concrete structures of a socialist society in this writing. I will do so in latter posts.

What I want to do is to discuss socialist  values and its broad vision of liberation. I think that an understanding of Socialism’s values and its  broad vision of liberation is necessary in order to show its importance in interpreting the  vision of Jesus’s  kingdom of God. Without the ideas of socialism the vision of kingdom as interpreted in the world  falls flat and becomes cramped within the confines of capitalist restriction.

 

Socialism can be defined by a relatively few values. Some of these values are:  solidarity with the oppressed and the poor, political and economic equality, a desire for the restoration of meaningful human community, democracy, freedom, and of course justice. Any self proclaimed Socialist movement which in its real practice systematically violates these principles is actively  opposing socialism  regardless of its political rhetoric.  Values such as  democracy, liberty, and fraternity (community) can hardly be viewed as being unique to socialism. These are also the values of the great French and American revolutions and are held by millions of people in the world today. The difference between the socialist project and other historical projects such as liberal republicanism  is that Socialists have used these values to radically critique the economic political structure of the capitalist economic system. It is Socialism’s contention that in the economic life of capitalism  these values are in fact suppressed. Therefore  socialists desire to create a political movement that will make these values the real basis of the economic life of societies and nations. 

 

So what does the political economic vision of Socialism have to do with the kingdom of God. The answer to this is all about the proper meaning of the kingdom of God. If as conservative Protestantism does one interprets the kingdom of God  as being purely about the after life, heaven, hell, and an other worldly salvation then of course socialism can have little relationship with this. If Jehovah Witness like, one interprets the kingdom of God as being about a millennium which will be established solely by a supernatural intervention of God in history, then again the socialist vision has little relevance. However if one believes that human activity has a significant role in the movement toward the kingdom of God on earth: and if one believes that the kingdom of God is about the development of equality, justice and solidarity on earth,  then Socialism is of great value in interpreting the meaning and direction of that kingdom.

 

 

Glenn King

One Response »

 

What Socialism is not Thursday, May 28 2009

The widespread belief spread by both the conservative right but also by many persons who do define themselves as socialist is that socialism is primality about a take over of the private enterprise economy by the government. This is false and I will be posting a series of article by both myself and other writers which hopefully will dispel this belief. The first writing is a very good article called “What Socialism is Not” printed within Torch and Rose the newsletter of the Social Democrats, USA.

Glenn

Leave a Response »

 

dispelling some falsehoods Thursday, May 28 2009

Given the name of this group it should be no great surprise that the theme of socialism is central to my political life. Socialism also has a strong role on my theology and particularly my understanding of the kingdom of god and of human justice. Socialism of course has a bad rap in American society. In the next few posts I will present several of my own writings and one writing by from the web site of Social Democracy, USA. Hopefully these writings will dispel some falsehoods that people have regarding the nature of socialism. The first writing is a condensed version of the description of my God and Socialism Yahoo group.

Leave a Response »

 

a name change Wednesday, May 27 2009

I am back on this blog again. I have been busy and have not been able to maintain activities on it. However from this point on I think that I will be able to begin posting regularly. I am  announcing another name change. I do not see any great reason to explain this change. I think that after some time readers will understand why.

Glenn

Leave a Response »

 

Making things Uncomfortable? Tuesday, Jan 13 2009

       In my previous post I argued that the biblical evidence suggest that  God’s attitude toward the rich is ambiguous at best. God as the Latin American liberation theologians argued a couple of decades ago favors the poor and in general condemns the rich. This of course goes against the comfortable assumptions of North American Christianity. Therefore why make these argument.

I am not writing this in order to make those who have some comfort in life feel guilty about some of the wealth that they have earned as a result of the work that they have done. Neither did I write this because I believe that the poor are morally better than are the rich. I do not believe that they are. Neither do I believe in the radical views of some of the Latin American liberation theologians that God is found uniquely in the faces of the poor. I have worked as a welfare worker my whole life and I do not see the face of God in people who apply for food stamps any more than in any other people. What I do believe though is that God is the advocate and liberator of the poor because great injustice has been done to them. God is the righter of injustice.

         Some explanation is needed. The Bible was written within a agrarian society in which the most important form of property was land. The Bible was not written by economists who could describe mathematically why the vast majority of people in most societies become poor and very small elites become very rich. They knew that it had something to do with

 interest rates, the adding of field to field,  unjust laws and bad law courts.  But in general they do not go into concrete details of the process.

         Now in the modern world particularly within the wealthiest societies on earth a lot more is known about the historical process of the  historical accumulation and creation of wealth. Thus we also know more about the development of both riches and poverty both in its absolute and relative forms.  And the fact is that  all historical societies have been run in such a way that wealth is always accumulated by a few and not by the majority of

people who do the work of society. For example, what should be crystal clear, is that any large transnational corporation or other wealth generating enterprise does not exist solely because one man did all of the work and thus created this wealth himself. No billionaire makes his millions because his work is so much more valuable than the work of the tens or hundreds of thousands of his worker / employees. He in fact is rich because the accumulation of profit that ultimately creates the great corporations of society are always said by law to be owned by him, his immediate predecessors and other folk like them.

        The great mass of working people who do the vast majority of the work never receive the lion’s share of the profits produced by their labor. The basic fact is that societies are  organized as they are  because governments are ultimately controlled by and support the control of the rich over the productive work and wealth of society. I think that this is the fact that the biblical prophets kept running up against. This is the reason I believe that ultimately the bible has a strong bias against wealth and the rich.

       Now from a practical point of view, I no longer believe that it is likely that any type of political movement can be built that would actually  challenge the capitalist basis of modern society. The old socialist and communist movements have failed miserably in their dream of a just society. The basic fact is that a state owned economy is ultimately no more just than is a purely capitalist one. The socialist vision failed and is now completely discredited in the minds of the majority of people in the West and in fact probably in most of the third world as well.

       However What I do think is that the biblical critique of wealth and poverty and its concepts of justice and oppression are very relevant in how we do politics in this society. For example the politics  of Christain political conservatives

that states that government should not help the poor with public assistance, Medicaid, universal health care or with policies that “God forbid” would give a few more percentages of the national income to the poor are simply anti-biblical. The idea that only Christians through their churches should support the poor through charity is completely insane and denies spirit of what the Bible teaches. Well, I will end here. As I announced when I formed this site this is a place to discuss religion and politics. For some what I have said will be totally unacceptable. Well I can only write what I believe. If that makes my views too out side the margin of political and theological correctness, so be it.

 

Glenn King

Leave a Response »

 

God and the Rich Monday, Dec 22 2008

          It seems to me that the mainstream biblical interpretation of both fundamentalist and liberal varieties generally either ignore or deliberately misinterpret the Bible on the issue of wealth. In general the tendency is for interpreters is to minimalize and to ignore the fact that Jesus, James, the prophets and the Torah  in general does not seem to like or favour the rich, and their riches. On the contrary the vast part of the Bible seems to be partisan to the poor and to those described as “oppressed.” I can cite a multiple number of scriptures to prove this. But a couple will do. Jesus said “blessed are the poor for they will inherit the kingdom of God.”  He also said “woe until the rich.” Note. these are paraphrased. If one wants some Old Testament examples I can refer them to Psalms 9-10 and Psalms 72.

      

The partisonship of the God of the bible for the poor and in opposition to the rich I think is fairly clear. The  issue is why is this the case? Those who attempt to explain the fact that the rich do not seem to enjoy favour in the Bible  generally respond by attempting to spiritualize and psychologize these traditions. Thus for norminative Christian Fundamentalism which has as its dominant concern an other worldly concern of salvation from hell and

and the award of  heaven, the issue becomes one of attitude. The status of being rich is not problematic because there is anything objectively problematic about riches in itself. The problem is only that the  wealthy often love their riches more than God. They then go on the explain how the rich young ruler and company obviously put their riches first.

 

       But the problem is that the Bible does not say anything that suggests that the rich young ruler and other rich persons necessarily put their riches  before God any more than do the poor or  any other people put what they have before God. Yes the Bible certainly states that trust should be in God and not riches or any other things. Most human beings are not totally faithful and put some things before God. And the rich however are no more guilty in this than others. Therefore attempts to psychologize the biblical hostility to the rich and to wealth does not work. 
      
     I would instead  argue that the answer the question is at least found in how  the Bible generally discribes  the poor. On this issue the Bible is clear.  With the exception of the book of Proverbs the Bible
tends to describe the poor as oppressed, suffering and in fact the victims of injustice. And God is generally seen as the liberator who brings justice to the poor. Again I can cite a multiple of examples to support this contention.

The question now arises – who are the wicked who oppresses
the poor?  Are they just common thieves and robbers in other words criminals? It is perhaps possible to interpret some of the references to the wicked in the Bible this way. But I think that in general  the rich, powerful and wicked are all placed by the Bible in pretty much in the same camp. After all again why does Jesus say “woe to the rich in pretty much the same breath as he says “blessed are the poor.”  Why did Mary say (Luke 1.52-53) that he “fills the hungry with good things but the rich he sends away empty.”

I will have more about this issue in future posts.

Glenn

One Response »

 

Obama and Warren Monday, Dec 22 2008

During the last view days I have been working on developing
my first two blogs. Now I am ready follow the conversation here
more closely. Obama? First I really do not have a lot of interest
in what “spiritual leaders” say about him. Their expertize seems
to be more about heaven or alternate states of consciousness
than about politics.

However I do believe that Obama may become a great president
as exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt. Why? First what impresses me
about Obama is both his brilliant and flexible political intelligence
and his knowledge. I think that both his cabinet selections and
his prior political history give evidence of this. I am impressed that
he seems to take Abraham
Lincoln, America’s greatest president, as his role model. What
that means is that Obama will attempt to govern from the center.
From that center he will work hard to bring in more elements such
as the more moderate wing of the evangelical Christian movement.
By developing this center alliance a President Obama will be able
to make the major reforms on energy policy, environment, health care
and the economy needed by this nation.

This is the reason that he has picked Rick Warren to give the
opening prayer at his presidential inaugural. Yes Warren is not friendly
to gays. by all accounts. I can understand
why the gay community would be very unhappy about Obama’s
choice of Warren for this role.

However there are two ways of judging people politically.
One way is statically. One can look a person or group’s positions at the
present moment of time and determine that because of certain
litmus test differences that they have with oneself they are the
enemy. One
can also choose to look at them in a more dynamic way. This is in fact
what Obama in the precedent of Abraham Lincoln is doing.
Yes on the issue of gay rights Warren position is unacceptable to
the gay community and
to many within the Democratic Party. However in many ways
Rick Warren has been a leader in the push within the evangelical
camp to take on the issues of environment, global warning,
poverty, Darfur, etc. On all of these issues he could be an
invaluable ally to Barak Obama’s cause.

So what is Obama to do? To not make overtures until
Warren changes on the gay issue? This would please the
gay community and the
Democratic Party base. However it could
also impede Obama’s attempt to create the alliance he needs
to deal with issues of major reform. Or should he in
a sense “forgive” Rick Warren and others holding similar positions
on the issues centered around gays and offer him some symbolic
honor be granting him the privilege of offering the invocation
at his inaugural. Of course Rev. Warren also has some problems here.
To many in the Christian Right Obama is little better than an
Anti- Christ.
Warren himself will be attacked for giving Obama his symbolic
support at the presidential inaugural.

To finish this up. I certainly could understand the idea that
Obama would have betrayed the gay community if he in fact
for the sake of political expediency has decided to support a political
program that leads to a denial of the rights of gay people.
However all that Obama is doing is offering a hand of friendship
to people whose help in the long run he may need. If this succeeds
the interests of all Americans including that of gays will be promoted.

As I stated in my first post this blog is in many ways an extension of

the ideas and activities which I have supported in the “God’s justice

and kingdom” an e-group of which I am moderator. This is actually the twin

post to my second post on this site “Homosexuality – Why the Passion?”

This post was written first and was a response to both some

discussion of some “spiritual leaders” views on President Elect

Obama and to the anger of many members of both the Democratic Base and

 of the homosexual community

 

Glenn

____________________________________________________________

Leave a Response »