Friday, December 17, 2010

Why Simplicity? A Complex Answer, Part IV


Mary's Magnificat 1
Originally uploaded by paynehollow
As I continue offering my thoughts on simple living, allow me to do a fairly quick review of the NT teachings of Jesus and the early church (RELATIVELY quick - there is a lot said in those few pages on this matter and I'm trying to get just a sampling, but it does go on a bit)...

From Luke 1, where poor teen-girl Mary - a Jewish gal in a land occupied by Rome and subject to Roman laws - has learned she will be the mother of the Messiah, she sang...

My soul exalts the Lord,
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
For God has had regard for the humble state of God's bondslave...

AND GOD'S MERCY IS UPON GENERATION AFTER GENERATION
TOWARD THOSE WHO FEAR GOD.

God has done mighty deeds with God's arm;
God has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart.
God has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble.

GOD HAS FILLED THE HUNGRY WITH GOOD THINGS;
And sent away the rich empty-handed.
God has given help to Israel God's servant...


=======
You can't really mistake the undercurrent of resentment against the wealthy and oppressive leaders in favor of an oppressed poor folk. For Mary, the poor Jewish folk having the situation set aright seems to be part and parcel of the coming Kingdom of God to follow the Messiah's coming. Fair enough?

Continuing, as Jesus began his ministry he said (in Luke 4)...

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor.
God has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and
recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free, and
to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord."


=======
Note: Many, if not most, biblical scholars (John Wesley, for instance) would say that this quote (Jesus is actually quoting from Isaiah here) at the end - "the year acceptable to the Lord" - is a reference to the Year of Jubilee, in which land was returned/redistributed back to original owners. The Jubilee year, established back in Leviticus, earlier in Jewish history, was, itself, an effort to keep wealth from accumulating too much in too few hands, or at least some would say so.

It was a way of trying to make sure that poverty did not continue from generation to generation, but rather, if hard times fell upon a family and if they were unable to set things aright, eventually they would receive their land back. A "do-over," if you will. Perhaps also, the point might be made that this was a way of reminding us that we don't "own" land, that we're merely temporary caretakers.

This Jubilee way of thinking - good news specifically to the poor - was very much part of what Jesus saw as his Kingdom of God teachings, it would seem.

Continuing, in Jesus' famous and seminal Sermon on the Mount as found in Luke 6...

And raising his eyes toward his disciples he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours.

Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied.

Blessed are you who are now weeping, for you will laugh...

But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.

But woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will grieve and weep.

Woe to you when all speak well of you, for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way.

But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you...

To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.

Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.


=======
Dang! That's some tough teaching. Give to EVERYONE who asks of you? Don't demand that the thief return your stuff??!! Really?

Continuing...

Do to others as you would have them do to you...

If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount.

But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High


=======
Flipping over to Matthew, when John the Baptist was in prison and wondering if Jesus was "the One" Jesus said...

"Go and report to John what you hear and see: the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM."

=======
As at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, he again emphasizes that he is preaching the Good News specifically to the poor. This is evidence, in Jesus' and John's minds, that Jesus is of/from God.

And, in Matthew 19, Jesus said...

"Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven..."

=======
It is "HARD for a RICH man to enter God's kingdom"??!! This is a tough teaching for we who are rich.

From Jesus' so-called "Model Prayer..."

Your kingdom come
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors...

For if you forgive others for their transgressions [literally, debts], your heavenly Father will also forgive you.


=======
And from Matthew 6 (again, the Sermon on the Mount)...

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.

But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven... for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also...

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other You cannot serve God and wealth.

For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

...And why are you worried about clothing?

...Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?'

For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Creator knows that you need all these things.

But seek first God's kingdom and righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.


=======
According to Jesus, the unbelievers (Gentiles) are worried about seeking after food, shelter, nice clothing, financial security. But Jesus is telling us, "Don't worry about that stuff, seek first God's kingdom..." Seeking wealth, Jesus says, is NOT part of the Kingdom of God which Jesus is ushering in and teaching us to live into here and now. Security is NOT from having many barns (or banks? or savings accounts? or investments??) to store up stuff for the possible crises of the future. Security comes in joining Jesus' gang, his followers, in the community and realm of God, THIS is where we find our security.

Looking past the Gospels, Paul says in Timothy...

A bishop must be irreproachable... gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.

He must manage his own household well... not greedy for sordid gain...

If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction.

For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. But flee from these things...

Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy.

Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share


=======
And James had this to say...

The brother in lowly circumstances should take pride in his high standing, and the rich one in his lowliness, for he will pass away...

For the sun comes up with its scorching heat and dries up the grass, its flower droops, and the beauty of its appearance vanishes. So will the rich person fade away in the midst of his pursuits.

Therefore, put away all filth and evil excess and humbly welcome the word that has been planted in you and is able to save your souls.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction...

My brothers, show no partiality as you adhere to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. For if a man with gold rings on his fingers and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and a poor person in shabby clothes also comes in, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes... have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil designs?

Listen, my beloved brothers. Did not God choose those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he promised to those who love him? But you dishonored the poor person. Are not the rich oppressing you? And do they themselves not haul you off to court? Is it not they who blaspheme the noble name that was invoked over you?

...If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?


Because of ALL of this, I gather some fairly basic principles:

1. Wealth can be - and often is - a trap, a snare.
2. There was a certain prejudice against the rich and in favor of the poor in the words of NT writers - sometimes uncomfortably harsh words are used against the rich as if they're speaking of ALL rich, not merely misbehaving rich. As if the assumption is: If you're rich, you're quite likely oppressive, blinded, trapped, seduced, needing to be thrown down and sent away hungry!
3. We are NOT to be of the type who pursue wealth (See #2), the pursuit of wealth is not to be a goal of ours
4. We are to be content with what we have
5. We are to live simply, sharing freely what we have with those in need
6. It is clearly not impossible for wealthy folk to be in the church, but it is a consistent matter of concern and caution
7. There is a very direct, insistent and consistent tying of what we're doing specifically with and for the poor with being part of God's kingdom
8. Everything is God's and we're merely caretakers

This is what I gather from these (and other) teachings. Beyond that, this is what makes some amount of sense to me. You?

57 comments:

Marshall Art said...

Good gosh.

You continue to post verses and interpret them to your liking. You have no trouble going off the reservation to support your twisted ideas of human sexuality, but you take at face value the words you post here.

As I said earlier, I take the sermon on the mount, as well as almost everything else Christ teaches about rich and poor to be that of a more spiritual nature as opposed to material. Thus, even when He speaks of taking His message to the poor, He is referring more to the poor in spirit.

Admonishments against the rich, also, are not against their "things", but against their attitudes and behaviors. Christ said, as you presented it, seek FIRST the kingdom of God. It doesn't say seek only. By this I mean that I maintain that one who puts God first can indeed become wealthy and still be all God wants him to be.

And just how much can one give to the poor who does nothing to attain anything? Is it better to have more than one needs in order to have something to give to the needy, or do you insist it's better to keep your kids hungry while helping the needy? This is not to say that sacrifice is stupid or insane, but that to put one in a situation where that is always the only choice (sacrifice or turning away the needy) is definitely NOT suggested anywhere in Scripture. Indeed, it is NOT a good stewardship of God's bounty to remain poor versus acquiring more. Remember the parable of the talents where the good servants increased their master's money and the one who buried it was admonished. Jesus didn't author parables that didn't reflect real world applications.

dinner's on--gotta go

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

Good gosh.

Gosh IS Good, yessir.

Marshall...

You have no trouble going off the reservation to support your twisted ideas of human sexuality, but you take at face value the words you post here.

You and I agree we ought not take every line in the Bible as literally applicable or appropriate today. We have to study the Bible prayerfully and weigh each passage in light of the whole, in light of logic, in seeking God's will. When we do this, we don't always agree. Here would apparently be one example.

The problem is, I don't find your conclusions to spiritualize away the literal meaning here to be rightly discerned. It sounds more like a matter of convenience (we can't REALLY live like that, let's take away its literal meaning and give it some other meaning).

I see no good reason to support your conclusions. You have not convinced me of the Godliness or morality of at least some of your conclusions.

From all I can see, all of these passages appear quite clearly to be talking about literal wealth and poverty. Do you have any solid reason to think otherwise?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

And just how much can one give to the poor who does nothing to attain anything? Is it better to have more than one needs in order to have something to give to the needy, or do you insist it's better to keep your kids hungry while helping the needy?

Well, Jesus and the disciples had little to nothing. Were they being lazy and doing nothing for the poor?

Is it better to have more than one needs in order to give to the poor? Perhaps. Perhaps not. A lot would depend, seems to me. IF by accumulating more, we set up/participate in unjust or oppressive systems or habits, then no, I don't think so.

But does the Bible call for us to try to get more? Does Jesus tell us specifically not to try to "store up" more ("Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth")? Doesn't the Bible teach us to be content with what we have?

Doesn't Paul say, "those who want to get rich fall into temptation" and doesn't that suggest to you we ought NOT want to get rich? What do you think Paul is saying there? That it's okay to want to get rich AS LONG AS your heart's in the right spot, because then you won't be one of those who fall into a trap and temptation? What would be your justification for that take?

You have not made a convincing case to me to heed your wisdom, brother. Sorry.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Ron Chernow has written a magesterial biography of John D. Rockefeller. One point he makes quite convincingly is that Rockefeller found his massive wealth a responsibility due to his Christian faith. Through his efforts, colleges and Universities, including the historically black Spellman College and the University of Chicago were either founded or given solid financial support. he battled ringworm in the south, and provided assistance to Baptist mission movements.

I am not siding with Marshall Art. I am suggesting that it is, indeed, possible to attain material wealth and understand one's obligations to use that wealth for social improvement.

A point Chernow tends to downplay, at least rhetorically, is the rapacious business practices that led to that massive wealth. The many crimes, the corruption of American politics, the anti-union activities, the deaths at Rockefeller businesses due to apathy toward worker safety or their right to organize. The wealth was accumulated not only through sound business sense, but through what was, in essence, a massive criminal conspiracy.

Rockefeller himself never saw himself as a criminal, despite the reality that he was, indeed, guilty of multiple crimes. His wealth, used for bettering the world, was covered with the blood of victims of his business practices.

I offer this as a point because, at the end of the day, the accumulation of large wealth is usually tainted. As is the pursuit of simplicity. The difference, however, is that two thousand years of church history support the pursuit of simple living. From the Apostles themselves, through various monastic movements, the mendicant orders, the Cathars and Waldensians, the Hussites in Bohemia and Anabaptists of Germany, the Levellers and Quakers of Britain, the Moravians and Amish. While usually starting on the margins, these movements were received well in part because their message of simplicity, of voluntary poverty and service, resonated with large enough numbers of people as embodying the heart of the Gospel ethic. Jesus said that birds have nests, foxes have holes, but the Son of Man has no where to lay his head. It seems to me that the pursuit of wealth, or even its accumulation as a byproduct of life, is not something the Gospel requires.

Marshall Art said...

Never put it forth as a matter of requirement. But there is a stewardshipt issue, as I've mentioned. Not using God's gifts to their fullest is not good stewardship. I also posit that the simple lives lead by the apostles were not necessarily a blue-print for Christian living, but had a purpose, in that they could not be accused if they weren't making big bucks off their preaching and teaching. In addition, they could not be distracted from their mission of preaching and teaching by the lure of coin and comfort.

Obviously, there are incredible limitations to simple living that puts people in need at risk, risks that are not realized through the efforts of good Chrsitans of means. These risks become more multiplied, affecting more people in need the more the rest of us devolve to simple living. Indeed, more people will be in need the more people move toward simple living as more people will be made vulnerable to catastrophic episodes of life.

Regarding Rockefeller, it would be helpful to remember that much of what we now consider cirminal in the manner in which he attained his wealth was not criminal at the time. So naturally he would not see himself as criminal or even unethical. Attitudes have changed and so have strategies utilized to attain wealth. There are few who need to risk lives to make money these days. All sorts of advances make it unecessary. Few would even want to be attached to such practices to which you allude. Those that would would soon lose business, as few would feel good about supporting such people with their patronage.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

Not using God's gifts to their fullest is not good stewardship. I also posit that the simple lives lead by the apostles were not necessarily a blue-print for Christian living, but had a purpose

Sorry, not finding your case convincing. Jesus wasn't using God's gifts to the fullest because he was not striving to get rich? That's just laughable, Marshall.

The early church wasn't using God's gifts to their fullest and thus weren't good stewards? I don't believe you have made a case for this at all.

Rather, I believe what Peter says fairly literally, too. Jesus came to set an example for us in how to live. A blueprint, if you will.

To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

In reverse order, your statement regarding Rockefeller is factually inaccurate. For example, at one point, he forced a group of independent petroleum refineries in Cleveland to submit to purchase by Standard Oil, having already forced them to use Standard Oil pipelines from the oil fields in Pennsylvania, Standard Oil drums to hold their petroleum, and pay higher fares on the railroads because Standard Oil had negotiated rebates and discounts because of their volume. All of these acts, including the final surrender of independent petroleum producers to Standard control were illegal under Ohio law.

So much for Rockefeller. As far as stewardship is concerned, that should be considered under proper use. More so, it should be understood as care for creation. Stewardship also includes not using natural resources if doing so causes more harm than good. The world isn't a play room filled with toys put here for human use. All creation - all of it, rocks and sand and trees and birds and bees and Lithuanians - is God's. It isn't ours. That is the first sentence of any doctrine of stewardship. The second is that our task as stewards is to take care of all of it.

If simple living helps sustain all of it in a healthy way, it certainly seems in line with a sound doctrine of stewardship.

Finally, no, it isn't a requirement. So, because hasn't made it illegal in some final, ultimate sense, then it's OK? Is God a lawyer to you? A Daddy on the verge of punishing us? I honestly find the whole use of "requirement" a red herring. All the Lord requires, according to the Bible is to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God.

Edwin Drood said...

So what is a Christian income? How much is too much? Please don't say "it depends" or "its relative"

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

What an insightful question, Edwin.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, I guess here is one presumption that I find problematic...

Not using God's gifts to their fullest is not good stewardship.

Suppose I'm a fella with many talents, including computer programming skills and gardening skills. Of my talents, computer programming would allow me to make the most money, but gardening is the one I believe to be most responsible, healthy, sustainable.

Are you presuming that if I chose to farm/garden to make my income (enough to take care of my needs and the needs of my families, as well as to share a bit with others, but no more) instead of computer skills (where I'd be making well above the average income) that I'd be "not using God's gifts to their fullest?"

On that proposition, I'd call BS. The presumption that what makes the most money = the best use of my time is a worldly assumption, not a Godly, moral or biblical assumption, seems to me.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

there are incredible limitations to simple living that puts people in need at risk, risks that are not realized through the efforts of good Chrsitans of means. These risks become more multiplied, affecting more people in need the more the rest of us devolve to simple living. Indeed, more people will be in need the more people move toward simple living as more people will be made vulnerable to catastrophic episodes of life.

Again, I think you're making presumptions here that are going unsupported and seem hopelessly idealistic in favor of materialism/consumerism-as-solution.

There are indeed limitations to simple living. That is sort of the purpose. But limitations that "put people at risk?" Well, 1. you'd have to make a case for that and, 2. there are limitations that put people at risk in every life choice we make.

If we choose to own and drive a car, we choose to put people at risk (through our pollution, through the probabilities that sometime you will have an accident and cause harm to others, through the exercise we lose by not walking, etc) and thus we limit how safe it is to bike, walk or breathe our air.

If we choose to drive a Prius, there is risk involved (the technology needed to create those great batteries involve a great deal of pollution in themselves).

If one chooses to walk places instead of driving, there is some risk involved (to one's self, primarily, I guess).

But to make your case that the risks involved in choosing a higher consumption/production sort of life are somehow much less than the risks involved in a simpler/less materialistic life, you'd have to actually make some case. You have not done so, thus far.

You saying things like, "Indeed, more people will be in need the more people move toward simple living as more people will be made vulnerable to catastrophic episodes of life..." is a fine statement, but you offer no support for it. I find it doubtful that you could make a strong case for your position.

My counter-point to your "catastrophe" argument is that some of the simplest-living people around (the Amish/Mennonites) are amongst the best-known for stepping up in times of disaster to take action and fix things.

Dan Trabue said...

Edwin asked...

So what is a Christian income? How much is too much? Please don't say "it depends" or "its relative"

I guess I could provide a general answer that I think is right: What is a Christian income? One that is sustainable, just, compassionate, commensurate and not extravagant. For starters.

What do you think?

Beyond that, perhaps you have missed this point in all these conversations because "It depends" is exactly the best answer I have. In looking at a simple lifestyle, I am looking at the question for ME and my family.

There is no one answer that I can think of for "How much is too much to make/consume?" that I would wish to apply to everyone. There are all manner of variables.

Do I have a family with children? One child or ten? Do I need to tend to aging relatives? If so, what is the best way to do so? To have a large farm house (houses) and raise plenty of our own food in order to best provide? Do they need a certain amount of health care? How can I/we best provide that in a sustainable way?

In figuring all of that out, I might have to weigh, "do we need a vehicle(s) in order to tote people around? If so, how can I do that, given the environmental, personal, societal, global costs associated with doing so? A horse and buggy? A mini-van?" And on it goes.

God has given us no ONE ANSWER to these sorts of questions. That being the case, we sorta have to figure it out ourselves, don't we? And I, for one, don't want to go around and impose my hunch about what the best solution is on everyone else. And I certainly don't want you to impose your best hunch about solutions on me.

What possible "right" answer could you expect to have to that question, Edwin? Do you have a "right" answer?

Marshall Art said...

"From all I can see, all of these passages appear quite clearly to be talking about literal wealth and poverty. Do you have any solid reason to think otherwise?"

Who did Christ free from either poverty or bondage? He healed to demonstrate the power of the Father, but did not use it to enrich anyone or to free anyone imprisoned. As we know, He did not say, "Do not store up treasure. Period!" but rather, "Do not store up treasure, but seek FIRST the kingdom of God." That is, no matter what you do on earth, the first thing should be to seek the kingdom. From that point one is better prepared to do all else in a manner pleasing to God.

"Well, Jesus and the disciples had little to nothing. Were they being lazy and doing nothing for the poor?"

I addressed both of these.

"IF by accumulating more, we set up/participate in unjust or oppressive systems or habits, then no, I don't think so."

By now it should be crystal clear that I do not advocate accumulating wealth by unethical means. What isn't crystal clear is how well you understand wealth creation that you seem to insist it can't be done ethically. In any case, statements like that which I've just highlighted are unnecessary in these discussions since I do not condone unChristian business practices. I suspect an unChristian reason on your part for continually bringing up such things. I try to debate in good faith. Where's the grace you demand of me?

"Doesn't Paul say, "those who want to get rich fall into temptation" and doesn't that suggest to you we ought NOT want to get rich?"

Not in the least. It suggests only that seeking after wealth brings with it temptations against which we must guard. That's a lot different from saying that we shouldn't even attempt it, of which I can't recall any such command anywhere in Scripture.

You seem to think that being content with what we have, versus attempting to acquire more are mutually exclusive. This doesn't even make sense. What if one has absolutely nothing. No food. No clothes (totally naked). No shelter. Nothing. He has only himself. Should he be content? Is he wrong to seek more? This is, after all, the logical conclusion of your position. Even if he seeks only minimum nourishment, he must seek after nourishment he does not yet need lest he go huntry again.

And yes, intention is everything. We've been through this on other subjects. I believe it is more than possible to acquire great wealth within the parameters of Christian teaching.

Marshall Art said...

"Sorry, not finding your case convincing. Jesus wasn't using God's gifts to the fullest because he was not striving to get rich? That's just laughable, Marshall."

No. What's laughable is your assertion that Jesus was all about being poor. I insist He had little concern for such things. You are confusing His dislike for the treatment of sinful rich dudes toward the needy with some goofy idea that poverty is noble.

"Jesus came to set an example for us in how to live."

This did not include living like a pauper and even your poor undertanding of the verses you present doesn't indicate that in the least. As to that, it would be helpful if you cite the exact source each time you use a verse, por favor. Gracias in advance.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

My general statement regarding Rockie and his business practices did not suggest he was clean as a whistle. So, while you are thrilled by keeping score in these discussions, your finding an instance of him running afoul of standing law at the time, assuming you're understanding the history properly (no guarantee there), does not prove any inacurracy about my statement.

"As far as stewardship is concerned, that should be considered under proper use."

Duh. I addressed this already. But for your sake, I do not condone unethical business practices. Since you both like to assume things about me, I'm giving you this one for future reference. Assume it at all times.

"Finally, no, it isn't a requirement."

Then why bring it up? I'm well aware of what God requires. Jesus put it this way: Love God with all your heart, soul and mind, obeying His commandments (something you're not prepared to do at all times), and to love one's neighbor as one's self.

"I honestly find the whole use of "requirement" a red herring."

Then you'd do well in never again bringing it up.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"Suppose I'm a fella with many talents..."

This whole bit assumes things it's sparse presentation cannot support, the first being that you could have enough land to garden, pay your bills, and have exactly enough to support yourself and give "a little more" to others, (as opposed to "a lot more" to many others?) that a high paying computer job could not better. You do realize, of course, that no amount of riches demands that you live large, don't you? You could still live in your little cardboard box and give tons of cash to support the poor and still have enough to cover most any unforeseen circumstance that might befall your loved ones. Stroking your psuedo-sanctimonious ego in your garden while denying all the good your other talents might provideis hardly an example of good stewardship of the gifts God gave YOU.

"But to make your case that the risks involved in choosing a higher consumption/production sort of life are somehow much less than the risks involved in a simpler/less materialistic life, you'd have to actually make some case. You have not done so, thus far."

Yet in four posts you have done less to support simple living as a viable alternative. How can simple living develop the technologies used to rescue victims of natural disasters, like earthquakes, tsunamis and the like? Should such victims be content with what they have left, if anything? Perhaps the Haitians should be content with the cholera outbreak and fend for themselves until simple livers paddle out to them with veggies from their garden.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall Art - I did not bring up "requirement". You did. I did not say that the stuff Rockefeller did was legal at the time, you did.

Please. Please. Please.

Read.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

What's laughable is your assertion that Jesus was all about being poor...

My assertion that Jesus was "all about being poor"? Which specific assertion was that and what does that mean?

I suspect this charge doesn't really mean anything, just something you wrote without much thought. But if you have some specific thing I've said that you'd like to address, by all means, address it.

As it is, that charge above means nothing.

Marshall continued...

I insist He had little concern for such things.

? Really? Jesus, whose mother sang (and no doubt raised him) about he who had come to "fill the hungry with good things," Jesus who came specifically to bring "Good news to the poor," who proclaimed "blessed are you who are poor, woe to you who are rich," etc, etc, etc, THAT Jesus had little concern for those things which he spoke directly of?

Marshall, that's just not a credible assertion, given what the bible actually says. Clearly, Jesus WAS concerned about doing "unto the least of these," and you appear to be denying a good part of the Gospels of the NT to make such an assertion.

Again, I find that position just not credible.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Odd enough, Marshall, the character you are describing - insouciant toward worldly possessions or status, indifferent toward the real suffering of the poor - is the Buddha. Not just Jesus, but the LORD speaking through the Hebrew prophets, is quite clear and definite. Economic and social justice are the main concern here. Because it is all part of the Great Commandments, specifically, loving others as we do ourselves.

It is true enough that Jesus hobnobbed with the rich and powerful as well as the poor and outcast. He did so in different ways, not the least of them being, despite differing details in the various Gospels, his insistence that attention to religious minutiae was far less important than justice rooted in love, something these same leaders seemed incapable of understanding.

And they weren't the only ones, apparently.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, earlier I asked you if a person had the talent of gardening and the talent of computer programing, one skillset in which the person could make a lot of money at and one where they could get by, if you actually considered it WRONG to choose the lesser paying job.

Your answer...

This whole bit assumes things it's sparse presentation cannot support, the first being that you could have enough land to garden, pay your bills, and have exactly enough to support yourself and give "a little more" to others, (as opposed to "a lot more" to many others?) that a high paying computer job could not better. You do realize, of course, that no amount of riches demands that you live large, don't you? You could still live in your little cardboard box and give tons of cash to support the poor and still have enough to cover most any unforeseen circumstance that might befall your loved ones. Stroking your psuedo-sanctimonious ego in your garden while denying all the good your other talents might provideis hardly an example of good stewardship of the gifts God gave YOU.

Are you really saying you think that person would be WRONG to take the lesser paying route BECAUSE it would be lesser paying? That you think the RIGHT thing to do is always take the higher paying job?

That sounds like what you're saying, but thought I'd just clarify, because that seems to me to be an astounding conclusion to reach.

Thanks.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

How can simple living develop the technologies used to rescue victims of natural disasters, like earthquakes, tsunamis and the like?

? How would simple living stop someone from working on developing helpful technology? Someone who learns and models sustainable farming methods, for instance - methods that aren't relying upon big expensive combines or petrochemical fertilizers and that can last indefinitely - that IS a helpful technology/wisdom.

I'm not sure how this makes any sense.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

In saying this:

"Marshall Art - I did not bring up "requirement". You did."

...you forget (or ignore) this:

"It seems to me that the pursuit of wealth, or even its accumulation as a byproduct of life, is not something the Gospel requires."

Who said that? Me? No, it was you. I merely stated that I did not put it forth as a requirement. Then you became fixated.

You then say:

"I did not say that the stuff Rockefeller did was legal at the time, you did."

But I did not. I merely responded to your gross generalization about him presented in statements such as this one:

"His wealth, used for bettering the world, was covered with the blood of victims of his business practices."

My response was equally general:

"Regarding Rockefeller, it would be helpful to remember that much of what we now consider cirminal in the manner in which he attained his wealth was not criminal at the time."

In fact, many laws governing business practices were a result of the effects of past practices deemed by some to be harmful, or because freedoms were abused. That you found (or think you've found--I haven't the time to check your sources to see if you've gotten their points) proof of some foul play, or play now seen as foul, does not diminish my point. But hey, if you enjoy focussing on the less relevant aspects of my comments, it's Christmas. Knock yourself out. Literally OR figuratively.

Marshall Art said...

"Odd enough, Marshall, the character you are describing - insouciant toward worldly possessions or status, indifferent toward the real suffering of the poor - is the Buddha."

Odd enough, Geoffrey encourages ME to read, read, read, as if I'M the one having trouble understanding. This is so far from the meaning of my words and position as to be akin to a blatant lie or slander. The concern Christ had for the poor is without question and the reason his warnings about the temptations of wealth are so prevalent and his encouragements toward giving by EACH of us to the poor so common. My point, which not entirely unexpectedly, is once again lost on you, is that His concern is not with what one has or doesn't have, but how one lives despite his status.

"...his insistence that attention to religious minutiae was far less important than justice rooted in love..."

Such has never been lost on me or most conservative Christians who defend Christian teachings on behaviors of all sorts. This is just a bullshit accusation by people like yourself to protect your defense and enabling of clearly prohibited behaviors. It's not minutiea of which we speak, but blatant and willing rebellion.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"My assertion that Jesus was "all about being poor"? Which specific assertion was that and what does that mean?"

The assertion of your entire position. If we're supposedly warned against being wealthy, than being less than wealthy is the goal. How much better than to be poor? It's the logical conclusion of your premise. These conclusions won't vanish because I can't find specific words that represent the nutshell of your argument.

"...you appear to be denying a good part of the Gospels of the NT to make such an assertion."

This despite my repeated clarifications.

Once again, how many hungry were filled with good things because of Jesus that were not filled only with the Good News that He came to be their Savior, a sacrifice to pay for their sins? This is what He meant when He sent word to John the Baptist that he preached the good news to the poor. YOU want to impose a more literal meaning to any speech regarding rich and poor that trumps this true purpose for doing so.

Marshall Art said...

"Are you really saying you think that person would be WRONG to take the lesser paying route BECAUSE it would be lesser paying? That you think the RIGHT thing to do is always take the higher paying job?"

If your concern is only with yourself, no. Do what pleases you in that case. But if you're going to pose as someone who puts his fellow man's comfort at such a premium as you plainly present yourself as doing, then not using the talent you possess that results in the greatest wealth production, thus being the greatest possible asset to the poor for whom you claim to be so concerned, then yes, taking the job with less pay is a very poor choice. I'd say more so for YOU than for me, since you make wealth into such a cross to bear, but you won't bear it, even for the sake of the poor, more of whom could be helped by such a choice. And what an example you could set for the rest of us greedy conservative bastards by creating wealth for yourself and using it for good rather than self-gratification like all rich people do in America if you're to be believed.

"How would simple living stop someone from working on developing helpful technology?"

That depends on whether you're really speaking of this as a personal choice only, or as something you'd encourage all to adopt for themselves. Obviously if it is the latter, how could helpful technology develop? Everyone would be busy in their "sustainable" gardens".

But it wasn't "simple living" that led to massive crop production on less land.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall, honest to God - your "response" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For the life of me, I cannot connect whatever you believe I have said to whatever you believe you said.

What possible "prohibited" behaviors are you referring to? Hmm? Again, I have no earthly idea what you are referring to.

This is the oddest non-conversation I have had in the longest time. Yet, I realize now that only I am having it. You are having a conversation with what you think I really mean, rather than with what I have actually written, which results in your odd, off-center "responses".

The discussion concerns simplicity. I offered the example of John D. Rockefeller as a complicating example in our discussion, one who represented the position you seem to be taking. My point was not to address whether the things he did were legal or not - that was something you mentioned, not I - but rather to address the whole question of simple living versus philanthropic giving by the wealthy, a practice rooted in Christian charity.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

This sailed right past you as you somehow, for some reason, wished to go off on a tangent.

Furthermore, you keep bringing up what God requires and doesn't require, and I was quite clear that, according to the weight of Scriptures, God only requires love and justice, related to one another, rooted in grace.

Nothing else matters. Not morality. Not politics. Not. simplicity or the accumulation of material wealth. Nothing. Grace being free, our response in thanksgiving, is shaped by that same thanksgiving. Through church history, the general consensus has been that a simple life, a life of giving of oneself to and for others, is the heart of true Christian living.

It seems to me Dan's position is in perfect keeping with this tradition. All the things you have said to counter his position have been, quite simply, wrong-headed. Starting with the whole business about the Christian ethic not being one of self-sacrifice. From there it all went downhill.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

If your concern is only with yourself, no. Do what pleases you in that case. But if you're going to pose as someone who puts his fellow man's comfort at such a premium as you plainly present yourself as doing, then not using the talent you possess that results in the greatest wealth production, thus being the greatest possible asset to the poor for whom you claim to be so concerned, then yes, taking the job with less pay is a very poor choice.

Well, then we disagree. That seems to me, brother, to be rather on the worldly side - "get as much money as possible, THAT is where good answers lie to the world's problems" - and not a solidly spiritual, moral or biblical one. I think this exactly because of the sorts of traps that wealth involve, as described repeatedly in the Bible and as is evident.

We disagree on that point profoundly.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

it wasn't "simple living" that led to massive crop production on less land.

Are you not familiar with the problems of the so-called "green revolution" that used petrochemicals and super-sized corporate answers as a substitute for sustainable production approaches? Perhaps I'll try to tackle that next.

I'll take sustainable growth over BIG FAST but unsustainable growth any time. As Edward Abbey rightly notes, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."

In short, though, "massive crop production on less land" might have been helpful as an emergency measure, I'd hope you would agree that if it is not sustainable, it is a foolish approach to long-term problems.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

The assertion of your entire position. If we're supposedly warned against being wealthy, than being less than wealthy is the goal. How much better than to be poor? It's the logical conclusion of your premise. These conclusions won't vanish because I can't find specific words that represent the nutshell of your argument.

I'd suggest you'd do better to stick to quoting me and saying, "When you say..., it's problematic because..." You consistently don't do well when you try to sum up what you THINK we mean and then beat to death that strawman.

No matter how much you might THINK we mean what you think we mean, it remains a strawman if we're not arguing that position. And, as I'm sure you know, a strawman is a non-starter. You've lost before you've begun that conversation.

[See Geoffrey's many comments/corrections.]

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, once again, referencing this comment...

If your concern is only with yourself, no. Do what pleases you in that case. But if you're going to pose as someone who puts his fellow man's comfort at such a premium... then not using the talent you possess that results in the greatest wealth production... then yes, taking the job with less pay is a very poor choice.

So, trying to sum up your position again:

1. You don't seem to have a problem with simple living insofar as it means consuming less. You are fine and perhaps even encourage people doing that (to thereby have more money to give to the needy), is that fair?

2. You don't have a problem with anyone advocating a simple lifestyle, IF they also don't care what happens to the poor.

3. You probably agree with me, though, that tending to the least of these, working with and for the poor, IS a critical component of Christianity, yes?

4. Therefore, you do have problems with CHRISTIANS who advocate for simple living UNLESS they also take the jobs that pay the most given their skill set and then give a good bit to the poor.

Right so far?

Some follow up questions then:

1. Do you leave room in your judgment of others for "calling"? For pursuing that lifestyle/career/life path that they believe is right/God's will for them?

2. That is, if the computer programmer feels "called" to preach, which will result in much less money, then that's okay? And, if the computer programmer feels called to go overseas as a missionary nurse (making less money), then that's okay? And if the computer programmer feels called to live on a farm advocating simple living as their mission... is that okay?

3. Assuming you might "allow" that the Christian taking a pay cut to preach or nurse, but NOT "allow" the Christian farmer to follow their calling, where do you get off trying to make that call?

4. In short, do you REALLY think it's as simplistic as "go for the career that makes the most possible money" when choosing life directions? Do you realize how worldly and shallow that sounds?

I'm sure you're not meaning to come across that way and that your concern is for giving the most possible money to those in need and thus your heart is probably in the right place, but is it possible that you've overstated the "call" to make as much money as possible?

Dan Trabue said...

Some more follow up questions for you, Marshall, if you have time.

1. When Mary said, "GOD HAS FILLED THE HUNGRY WITH GOOD THINGS;
And sent away the rich empty-handed..." what/who do you think she was speaking about?

2. When Jesus said, "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry..." who do you think he was speaking of/to?

Also, you asked...

how many hungry were filled with good things because of Jesus that were not filled only with the Good News that He came to be their Savior, a sacrifice to pay for their sins?

I'd say it is apparent that Jesus, the disciples and the early church were all quite evidently busy feeding the literally hungry, so I'm not sure what your point is, here. Are you suggesting that for Jesus and the early church, that feeding the hungry was not a consistent, literal effort that was part of the grace of God in their lives?

You followed up that question with this statement...

This is what He meant when He sent word to John the Baptist that he preached the good news to the poor.

So, when Jesus told John's followers that he had preached the good news to the poor, are you suggesting that it was a "be warm, well fed, for ONE DAY, God will forgive your sins if you accept Jesus as your Lord?" and did nothing to fill them with literal food?

I'm not sure of what your point is here.

Tell me, Marshall, why do you think Jesus told John's followers he was preaching good news specifically to the poor?

Edwin Drood said...

If Jesus came to save the poor from poverty then why do we still have poor people in poverty?

Jesus came to save us (the poor) from our sins (in the grand scheme of things it is our sins that make us poor), God does not care what social class you belong to, we are warned however that seeking worldly things before seeking God is the path to hell.


I get the sense that you are trying to justify class warfare with Jesus's teachings. How much sense does it make to tell poor people to covet the rich in the name of God?

Alan said...

These sentences, one after the other are remarkable for their incredible stupidity:

"If Jesus came to save the poor from poverty then why do we still have poor people in poverty?"

"Jesus came to save us (the poor) from our sins"

If Jesus came to save us from our sins, then why do people still sin?

It isn't amazing that someone can write such contradictory opinions one after the other. What's amazing is that such a person who can't even understand the basic and simple contradictory nature of those two sentences can write at all.

Season's Greetings.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Quite apart from Alan's pretty clear point, I honestly have to wonder where Edwin got the following "thought" from: "I get the sense that you are trying to justify class warfare with Jesus's teachings. How much sense does it make to tell poor people to covet the rich in the name of God?"

First, there is nothing, not a word, sentence, paragraph, link, or anything else in this post or comment thread that has anything at all to do with anything that could be construed as "class warfare". To be honest, my experience of those two words, when used by conservatives, means poor people complaining that they're poor, and they should shut up and accept their lot in life.

As for the second part, where has Dan written that the poor should covet the rich? Tell me, find a quote. Please. This entire post is about living simply - not about riches or poverty, and definitely not about telling the poor to covet what the rich have. It is the exact opposite of coveting.

This is what I mean, and Dan, means, when we complain that our conservative interlocutors keep bringing up issues not pertinent to the topic, reading in to our words whatever they think we really mean, and inferring position we have not, do not, and (speaking for myself) would never advocate. This is why this particular comment thread is an object lesson in the impossibility of real conversation. You folks, Marshall and Edwin, keep responding to the voices in your heads that tell you what we really mean by our words.

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks, fellas. Nothing more for me to add in response to Edwin, you've said it all incredibly well.

Merry Christmas.

Marshall Art said...

Well, obviously, dealing with Geoffrey is like talking to a wall. He will say whatever comes to mind, then, when you call him on it, he will deny having said it. This I've shown in one of my last comments wherein I've copied and pasted his words, followed by my own responses, to demonstrate the chronology of the dialogue regarding "requirements". I then clarified my statements regarding Rockefeller and still he insists things he said and brought up...forget it. This all is secondary to his peculiar insistence that morality is unimportant in the life of a Christian, while somehow positing that perhaps love and justice are distinctly outside that category. Ah, the "progressive" Christian!

(And Dan thinks Geoffie's provided corrections? Sheesh!)

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"That seems to me, brother, to be rather on the worldly side - "get as much money as possible, THAT is where good answers lie to the world's problems" - and not a solidly spiritual, moral or biblical one."

Wow. This is very much what Geoffrey and you continue to accuse me of doing, erecting strawmen or some such. You seem to forget to what this has all been tied. It's not just "simple living" or what the Bible teaches about rich and poor. My whole purpose for questioning your position on these matters is in how you square it with your "progressive" politics.

I'll get to the questions about what Scripture is teaching later. But look again at comments to which you logged the above highlighted response. YOU'RE the one who puts such a premium on serving the poor. Sure, that's a fine calling, but again, YOU put it forth as the be all and end all of Christian teaching (which it isn't, but that's for another discussion). So here you suggest possessing two possible talents that could be exploited and you find Godliness in choosing the lesser of the two for providing for those poor for whom you claim to care so much. What I suggest is not "get as much money as possible". The question is which talent provides more for the poor you want to help? If it's the high paying computer talent, then you're stiffing some poor people just to pretend your more holy and pious by raising cabbage as opposed to making cabbage! You're purposely denying help to more for the sake of image.

Don't talk to me about sustainable this or one's calling for that because then you change the parameters of the hypothetical that YOU originally set up. So don't accuse me of worldliness on my part. It's really self-satisfaction on your part and worse, and not very helpful to the poor you could have been helping through the better paying gig.

"Are you not familiar with the problems of the so-called "green revolution"..."

No, and not really interested at this time, except to say that there has never been a farmer alive who was not interested in making his livestock and land more productive for, guess what? More money.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

Sure, that's a fine calling, but again, YOU put it forth as the be all and end all of Christian teaching (which it isn't, but that's for another discussion).

Um, except I haven't said that service to the poor is the "be all and end all of Christian teaching." I haven't said that because I don't believe it.

But, clearly, it is central to Jesus' teachings, right? Tending to the least of these IS important to Jesus. Did I say that it is the "end all be all" of Christianity? No, but I DID say that it is vitally important.

Are you disagreeing with my actual position or just your strawman?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

So here you suggest possessing two possible talents that could be exploited and you find Godliness in choosing the lesser of the two for providing for those poor for whom you claim to care so much. What I suggest is not "get as much money as possible". The question is which talent provides more for the poor you want to help?

WHO SAYS that farming is the lesser of the two? That is YOUR HUNCH, I disagree with your choosing money as the qualifying factor as to which career is "greater."

Marshall Art said...

"I'd suggest you'd do better to stick to quoting me and saying, "When you say..., it's problematic because..." You consistently don't do well when you try to sum up what you THINK we mean and then beat to death that strawman."

I'm sticking to your entire worldview regarding wealth and poverty and saying "it's problematic because..." I don't create strawmen or need to. The problem is that you can't, or won't, recognize or acknowledge the ramifications, implications and/or consequences of that worldview.

Regarding your summation:

1. I don't have a problem with simple living at all, no matter WHAT it means. I have a problem with simple livers who, while eshewing the acquisition of more as somehow less than Godly, feel it within their right to demand through the voting process that those who DO seek more distribute their hard earned wealth according to the whims of the simple livers who won't get off their dead asses to do what it takes to acquire wealth that they could then give to whatever cause so excites them. It's one thing to avoid the trappings of wealth so as to satisfy your notions of piety, while still encouraging the wealthy to give generously. It's quite another to play the holy roller and force those who've sacrificed and toiled (and any Christian MUST have that attitude about those they don't know) to cough up more dough to be spent as YOU see fit.

"2. You don't have a problem with anyone advocating a simple lifestyle, IF they also don't care what happens to the poor."

This is just stupid. It's how that caring for the poor manifests itself. The way you do it is not remotely ideal as you express it. The lifestyle is in total conflict with the degree to which you claim to care.

Marshall Art said...

more later

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

I don't create strawmen or need to.

When you "sum up" a position of someone with words that that person hasn't said and doesn't believe, that is the definition of "strawman."

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

It's quite another to play the holy roller and force those who've sacrificed and toiled (and any Christian MUST have that attitude about those they don't know) to cough up more dough to be spent as YOU see fit.

This is, I assume, you speaking of me, Thomas Jefferson and, as far as I can tell, most people being in favor of a progressive means of taxation. If so, then again, I'd ask you to give it up. It's a non-starter. I don't know of anything that you can say that would convince the vast majority of folk that a progressive taxation system isn't the best way to go about paying for our common needs. As a matter of JUSTICE.

And that is really a different issue than simple living, seems to me. Listen, I GET IT: You think progressive tax schemes are un-christian and unfair. But you can not argue your way to support that position in such a way as to sound convincing to anyone but yourself and a few folk who'd agree with you, so I'm suggesting you give that one up.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Art, you have yet to "call" me on anything. As a matter of fact, as I made quite clear, most of the things you have written directed at me have nothing - no thing, not a whit, not a jot or tittle - to do with the substance of any of my points. You completely missed the reason I brought up JD Rockefeller. You seem to think that because I say something may or may not be required by the Gospel or by God, therefore the whole topic of what the LORD requires has suddenly been broached, when all along it is you who continue to respond, in particular to Dan, as if the position he is espousing is something required.

Again, and again, and again, and again, not just in responses to me, but to Dan as well, you quite simply refuse to even accept the reality that the issue here is not about finances. It isn't about economics. It isn't about politics. It touches on those parts of human life, to be sure, but it isn't identifiable with them.

Dan is speaking of simple living. Of making choices rooted in a thankful heart, in love for others, and in that humble search for impacting the lives of others through stewardship and conscientious living. For some reason, you have seen fit to insist, without any basis in anything like an understanding of the Bible, of the history of the Church, or the concepts involved, to understand what Dan is saying. You seem to be picking arguments with him that can be summed up by the notion that, since Dan (and by extension his family) have made and are making these choices, these same choices are binding in some manner upon others.

You seem to be reading an implicit critique of materialism, capitalism, and all sorts of other "isms" in the things Dan has written. In some sense, I suppose this is true, if for no other reason than the Scriptures stand above our contingent human structures and, in grace and love, pass judgment upon them all. All the same, this isn't Dan's goal, and my guess is he really doesn't care all that much about the meta-critique inherent in the Scriptures, at least in this context.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Dan is doing nothing more or less than presenting his Scripture-based reasoning as to why he and his family have made the choices they have made. That's all. He isn't arguing with anyone. He isn't telling the rest of the world they are wrong. He isn't demanding that we adopt this particular way of thinking and living or go to hell. He isn't suggesting that a whole economy and way of seeing finances and income that seems antithetical to this way of thinking and living is evil and wrong.

Yet, you want to argue with him. You want to tell him he's wrong. You want to tell me I'm wrong - about what I'm still not sure - for defending him, when I'm not so much defending him as I find his position provocative and interesting on any number of levels. I also find it that most blessed of things - a lived judgment upon the choices my family and I have made!

I shall not even attempt to disabuse you too much from your continuing belief that I have failed to address your withering criticisms. I may have, but that is only because you do not, have not, and my guess is will not, address anything I have written, in any substantive sense. Your criticisms, whatever else they may be, have nothing to do with anything I have written, anything I have ever thought, believed, advocated, and certainly not practiced. Just the notion that you insist I advocate "immorality" is ridiculous on its face, as I have never, ever, and would never advocate anything immoral. That notion, which you see fit to repeat any time we meet on the internet, is almost libelous, all things considered.

I have Christmas stuff to do, so I will sign off.

Marshall Art said...

*Ahem*

While I have a moment,

3. I don't know if I agree with you on this insofar as the level of priority you place on it. You fail to be specific in terms of day-to-day manifestations of the concept. Thus, I'll only say that I agree with you in a general sense, and leave it at that for now.

So much for my moment. Later, and Merry Christmas!

Dan Trabue said...

Geoffrey...

You want to tell him he's wrong. You want to tell me I'm wrong - about what I'm still not sure - for defending him, when I'm not so much defending him as I find his position provocative and interesting on any number of levels.

This is one thing that I love about more progressive types, as well as some more conservative types, of Christians: The ability to listen to someone espouse something that is meaningful, spiritual, hopeful, Godly to them without the presumption that the person would want to foist it on others and with the ability to rejoice in that depth of meaning for the person and consider its implications for them.

In this world, not everything is spelled out for us 100%. Yes, yes, yes, of course, we agree to "love our neighbors" and even "love our enemies," but what does that mean? None of can stand up and say, "SPEAKING FOR GOD, what 'love your enemies' means is..." and presume to enumerate what exactly that means, from God's lips to our ears.

No, we have to figure out the best we can how DO we love our neighbors? How DO we care for/with the least of these? How DO we live lives of grace?

And since there is no one answer, those compatriots in the faith coming from my tradition (left, right, otherwise) recognize and rejoice and struggle together as we all seek to figure out what that means FOR US. For me.

I don't presume to answer: THIS AND ONLY THIS is the one true way approved by God to love your neighbor, to live simply, to be gracious. I'm saying, this is what seems reasonable to me, even as I struggle with it, myself.

And Geoffrey and our kindred out there say, "Wow. What does Dan's struggle say to my life? What might there be for me to learn? And regardless, how cool that we're all in this struggling to those same ends together. I rejoice with you, Dan, in your struggle."

And there is a gracious freedom in that sort of support that speaks deeply of the love of God. God here with us. Emmanuel, some might say.

Thanks Geoffrey, Merry Christmas.

Marshall Art said...

Yet, when questioned by someone who, if you will, plays "devil's advocate", you cower and accuse. I see problems with what little you've described of your "simple living" philosophy. That's all. The problems, given your less than definitive explanations, seem to far outweigh the touchy-feely, kumbaya benefits.

While you praise the qualities of progressives (who seem to go all in on the merest emotional twinge elicited by the mention of another progressive's suggestion), you are not so keen to answer to the real, objective and thought-based questions put to you by those like myself. These questions are provoked by your own comments (as always) and not necessarily a result of countless other less than satisfying explanations for a myriad other beliefs upon which you've expounded over the years. It is, and always has been, my hope that at some point, on some topic, your responses to any of my questions would result in stopping me cold with something that approaches unquestioned logic. "Wow! I never thought of that!" Such has never been the case, yet I try nonetheless long after others have thrown in the towel. If that's too much for you, you've never let on (not directly), so I persist.

Marshall Art said...

So, moving on:

"4. In short, do you REALLY think it's as simplistic as "go for the career that makes the most possible money" when choosing life directions? Do you realize how worldly and shallow that sounds?"

It only seems worldly and shallow to those working off the emotional level alone, and not putting any real thought into the equation. This isn't so uncommon these days after years of movies and books and such having assumed every ambitious person lacked compassion and feeling for his fellow man. That's every bit as simplistic as whatever it is you're assuming about me. I happen to think that one can make some good scratch pursuing one's dream, should that dream allow for such.

But that really isn't the point, nor was it ever. The point has been that here is this dude, we'll call him Dan Trabue, who speaks of simple living, caring for the poor AND progressive income tax. There's all sorts of problems with this. Simple living, as described so poorly thus far, is not conducive to real substantive help for the poor (unless simple living is just a phrase used for someone who makes tons of cash but lives simply). If everyone were to adopt this philosophy, I don't see how poverty would be reduced, and instead believe it would increased by virtue of the fact that very little progress would occur from a population that does not seek to improve their standard of living. I just don't see how the economy would be stimulated to the point of decreasing poverty.

So, for you, it might make you feel you are closer to God by living simply, and if so, fine. But it does seem to limit you greatly in your stated endeavor to
"consider the least of these".

Then, on top of that, you support the forcing of money from those who have, and have benefited by, a different philosophy for living. (I again insist that you apply your Jefferson quote improperly to today's world, especially in light of the Jefferson quote I provided to counter it. So please don't bring him up again unless you can show better proof that he would approve of progressive tax rates.) And while it is easy to imagine there are tons of greedy and envious creatures in favor of such policies in today's world, such has nothing to do with one who so purposely avoids wealth creation in order to live simply while still maintaining a deep care for the poor.

IRS stats can show what conservatives know, that increasing tax rates on the rich has not led to increased revenues to the federal coffers. More economic growth occurs when the producers are not so impeded and when growth occurs, more people benefit. This doesn't match your concern for the poor if you support that which makes life tougher for them.

Dinner calls.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall quoted me...

"4. In short, do you REALLY think it's as simplistic as "go for the career that makes the most possible money" when choosing life directions? Do you realize how worldly and shallow that sounds?"

And responded...

It only seems worldly and shallow to those working off the emotional level alone, and not putting any real thought into the equation.

1. I have stated that it is my position that we are called to live simple lives, to be content with what we have, to not seek after wealth as a goal. I say this based on what I think the Bible clearly teaches.

What, in any of that is emotion-based? Where is there a lack of thought?

2. I have stated that it is my position that we ought to consider simple living because this is a finite world with finite resources and we can not ALL consume at the rate that most of us in the West consume.

What, in any of that is emotion-based? Where is there a lack of thought?

Specifically.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

This isn't so uncommon these days after years of movies and books and such having assumed every ambitious person lacked compassion and feeling for his fellow man. That's every bit as simplistic as whatever it is you're assuming about me.

You keep coming back to this as if someone here has charged "the rich" (myself included) with being lacking in compassion. As if I'm making assumptions about you. Brotherman, the fact is, I just don't think about you all that much. I'm not making assumptions about you, I'm just responding to what you have actually said.

I'd suggest you'd be better off sticking to responding to what has actually been said. No one has said that "the rich" are lacking in compassion, not here, that I recall. Well, other than some of those biblical characters coming close to sounding like it.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall Art: "Yet, when questioned by someone who, if you will, plays "devil's advocate", you cower and accuse. I see problems with what little you've described of your "simple living" philosophy. That's all. The problems, given your less than definitive explanations, seem to far outweigh the touchy-feely, kumbaya benefits."

Again, art seems to be seated because the point seems to sail over his head. First, there is no need of a devil's advocate here, because Dan's position is little more than a working out of a coherent approach to life from a major Scriptural theme - living justly toward others. So, I suppose only an advocate for the Adversary would, indeed, be willing to question it.

Second, no one is cowering or accusing. Dan isn't cowering, but addressing your comments directly. He isn't accusing, except perhaps of some kind of blindness toward his point, which is actually really clear.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Art, again: "The point has been that here is this dude, we'll call him Dan Trabue, who speaks of simple living, caring for the poor AND progressive income tax. There's all sorts of problems with this. Simple living, as described so poorly thus far, is not conducive to real substantive help for the poor (unless simple living is just a phrase used for someone who makes tons of cash but lives simply). If everyone were to adopt this philosophy, I don't see how poverty would be reduced, and instead believe it would increased by virtue of the fact that very little progress would occur from a population that does not seek to improve their standard of living. I just don't see how the economy would be stimulated to the point of decreasing poverty."

I'm not even sure where to begin with this. Where in here is any discussion of taxes? All the rest is just, plain and simple, gibberish, a mish-mash of half-baked thoughts and ideas that show, quite clearly, you just don't get what Dan is talking about. At this late date, taking the time to make transparent what is already quite clear seems an exercise in futility.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

As I've said before, I'm responding to the totality of Dan's comments over the years. I can't help but think of them as he goes about poorly explaining his choice for simple living. I realize it is inconvenient, but as a lifestyle choice, especially for one so concerned for the poor, it makes absolutely no sense. That is, it is incompatible with a real desire to help the poor as it limits one's ability to impact the greatest numbers.

One could ask to Dan, what is more important? Living simply or helping the poor? One of these seems just talk. And if he's being truthful that he's only speaking of personal choice and not an encouragement to all, it seems less practical, as such a thing works reasonably well in the relatively closed communities of the Amish (where diversity is NOT the rule). For the odd (and I use the term with purpose) soul that makes such a choice otherwise, it seems to me more self-congradulatory ("see how pious and holy I am?") than walking in His ways while walking in the world.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Art, part I: "As I've said before, I'm responding to the totality of Dan's comments over the years."

Awesome. Stupid, but awesome.

Art, part II: "I realize it is inconvenient, but as a lifestyle choice, especially for one so concerned for the poor, it makes absolutely no sense. That is, it is incompatible with a real desire to help the poor as it limits one's ability to impact the greatest numbers."

Even more stupid, even more awesome. Obviously, choosing to live in such a way that others have greater to access to our finite resources does nothing to help them. Obviously, choosing to make do with less isn't proper stewardship of our finite resources. Obviously, intentionally living with the goal of living in responsible community with others locally and globally is nonsensical. Is this your position? Dan, am I summarizing your position well? Art, and I summarizing your criticism well?

If, indeed, the latter is the case, then my point is proved - Marshall Art, you quite simply are clueless. You are clueless about Dan's position, you are clueless about the impact one's life-choices have, not just on one's self, but on all the other lives one touches, and through all sorts of interconnections, with the larger world in which we live.

To propose that the pursuit of wealth is a social good because it provides the resources for charitable giving is, quite simply, irrelevant to the issues Dan is addressing. That you continue to reference it, without any indication that you grasp the alternatives Dan is proposing, tells me all I need to know about your reading comprehension skills, your moral and political imagination, and your commitment to the second Great Commandment of Jesus.

Dan Trabue said...

Yes, Geoffrey, you seem to be understanding my positions. Thanks for the assist.